Editor's Note: This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission.


The “Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act,” HF 3936, is a walleye-size privacy bill that significantly expands on the California Consumer Privacy Act.  Unlike the CCPA, it does not include a dollar threshold for applicability.

Instead, it would apply to entities conducting business in Minnesota or targeting its residents with products or services that:

  1. control or process personal data of 100,000 consumers; or
  2. derive more than 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and process or control personal data of 25,000 or more consumers.

The legislation would provide consumers the right to know and request deletion of personal information collected about them and to opt-out of the sale of their personal information.  Additionally, consumers would have the right to correction and data portability.

Specific responsibilities are assigned to “processors“ and “controllers.”  For example, processors would be responsible for adhering to controllers’ contractual instructions, assisting controllers with consumer requests through “technical and organizational measures,” assisting controllers with respect to the security and processing of personal data and breach notification, agreeing to audits by the controller, and ensuring “each person processing the personal data is subject to a duty of confidentiality with respect to the data.


The legislation contains a lengthy section regarding facial recognition, providing in part:

Processors that provide facial recognition services must make available an application programming interface or other technical capability, chosen by the processor, to enable controllers or third parties to conduct legitimate, independent, and reasonable tests of those facial recognition services for accuracy and unfair performance differences across distinct subpopulations . . .

Controllers’ responsibilities would include, in part, providing a CCPA-type privacy notice, establishing the means for submission and authentication of consumers’ requests and conducting and documenting data protection assessments which must be provided to the attorney general upon request.  “Authentication” is defined as “to use reasonable means to determine that a request to exercise any of the rights . . .  is being made by the consumer who is entitled to exercise such rights with respect to the personal data at issue.”

The legislation would provide exemptions for information processed pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), as well as pursuant to various other laws.

There would be no private right of action, but the attorney general would have enforcement power including the assessment of civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation.

In contrast, Minnesota HF 3096 is a minnow-size version of the CCPA that would apply to any for-profit business, regardless of whether it “does business” in Minnesota, that:

  1. has annual gross revenue in excess of $25 million;
  2. annually buys or sells the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or
  3. derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information.

The legislation would require a notice at collection and provide consumers the right to know and request deletion of personal information collected about them and to opt-out of the sale of their personal information.

Interestingly, the legislation does not specify any particular methods to verify a consumer’s identity with respect to a request, stating only that “a business may require authentication of the consumer’s identity and the request.” 

The legislation does not include any exemptions for businesses or personal information subject to HIPAA, FCRA or GLBA.

The legislation does not provide for a private right of action, but the attorney general could seek damages between $100 and $750 per consumer per violation and treble damages in the event of willful and malicious violations.

Next Article: Coast Promotes Rechelle Brown to Director of ...