Opposition Testimony for HB 1589: The Digital Choice Act The Digital Choice Act (HB 1589) presents a promising framework for enhancing user data rights and fostering competition within the technology sector. However, it is essential to critically analyze the significant oversight and funding issues it presents. Key provisions like data portability, deletion, and cross-platform interoperability are commendable, yet the bill neglects to provide the necessary funding authorization for enforcement by the Attorney General’s office. This oversight raises pertinent concerns about the feasibility and effectiveness of its implementation. Funding and Enforcement Challenges By placing enforcement responsibilities on the AG’s office without designated funding, the bill ultimately undermines its own objectives. The lack of allocated resources means that the office may struggle to uphold the user rights the legislation ostensibly champions. This creates a scenario where large social media companies could continue to operate with little accountability, effectively nullifying the bill's intent to curb monopolistic practices. The absence of a private right of action further compounds this issue, leaving individuals with limited recourse against violations of their digital rights. Intersectional Framework Considerations Moreover, the bill is inadequately grounded in an inclusive intersectional framework. While it promises civil liberties rooted in data autonomy, it is crucial to consider how these rights will impact diverse populations, especially those who are more vulnerable. Without explicit provisions for equity and accessibility, the bill risks perpetuating existing disparities in digital participation and rights. Ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in the implementation process is essential to create a genuinely equitable digital landscape. In its current form, HB 1589 must undergo significant revisions to address these concerns, ensuring robust funding, comprehensive oversight, and an inclusive framework that truly uplifts all users.
HB1589
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseDigital choice act for data portability
AIEstablishes the digital choice act, requiring social media companies to provide users access to their personal data and enable data sharing across platforms through open protocols and user-controlled interoperability interfaces.
establishing the digital choice act.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
14 submissionsPrivacy and choice are core values and freedoms in this country.
Greetings from Sullivan County: This bill seems to mandate invention and interoperability. It rather feels like insisting that mandating that an F150 truck bed be interchangeable with Chevy and Dodge. Perhaps you might mandate that Verizon service be interoperable with ATT while you are at it. Heavy handed legal nightmare. NO. ITL.
Dear Chair Hunt and Members of the Committee, My name is Dr. Edward Longe, and I serve as Director of National Strategy at the James Madison Institute, a 501(c)(3) research organization based in Tallahassee, Florida. We are guided by the principles of individual responsibility, limited government, and free markets. Following Utah's passage of H.B. 418 (The Digital Choice Act) in 2025, considerable interest has emerged in expanding interoperability mandates for American consumers. While requiring social media platforms to interoperate may appear beneficial for users, such mandates risk creating substantial data security vulnerabilities, particularly absent comprehensive state or national data privacy legislation. When legislators for platforms to open their systems to third parties, they multiply potential attack vectors. A breach at any connected third-party service can become a pathway into the primary platform's infrastructure. This concern is especially acute because platforms, many of which invest billions annually in cybersecurity, lose control over security standards once data leaves their ecosystem. The entire system becomes only as secure as its weakest third-party partner. As researchers analyzing the European Union's similar mandate have documented, "interoperability will vastly increase the attack surface at every level in the stack—from the cryptography up through usability to commercial incentives and the opportunities for government interference." When data flows between multiple parties, it faces exposure during both transmission and storage across numerous locations. While encryption mitigates some risk, it cannot eliminate vulnerabilities created when third parties lack robust security practices. Each additional location where sensitive user data resides creates another opportunity for data leakage, unauthorized access, or inadequate protection. Platforms invest heavily in securing their own infrastructure but cannot guarantee third parties will meet equivalent standards. We respectfully urge the committee to consider whether New Hampshire's social media users are better served by voluntary interoperability standards developed through industry collaboration, or by carefully tailored data portability rights that preserve user control without compromising security infrastructure that has been developed and providing critical protections to New Hampshire’s residents. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Edward Longe
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.