The Role of L.L. Bean in the Privacy Debate: A Complex Intersection of Business and Tech Giants

The Influence of L.L. Bean in the Privacy Debate

Rep. Maggie O’Neil, a Maine legislator, had the intention of providing strong online privacy rights to the state's residents. She introduced a data-privacy bill in May, disregarding a request from a Meta lobbyist to support a more industry-friendly law.

However, the entry of L.L. Bean changed the dynamics of the situation. In October, a lawyer representing the well-established outdoor retailer appeared in the state Capitol to testify against O'Neil's bill. They argued that the proposed privacy requirements would impose unnecessary burdens on businesses. Additionally, L.L. Bean sent a letter urging lawmakers to adopt existing privacy regulations from other states instead of creating a new set of protections specifically for Maine.

As one of Maine's largest employers and most recognizable brands, L.L. Bean wields significant influence in the state Capitol. While the company did not endorse any specific law, its testimony aligned with a rival privacy bill supported by the tech industry. This bill would grant companies greater freedom to use, buy, and sell consumer data. It was drafted by a state senator and had input from lobbyists representing Meta, Charter Communications (a cable giant), and the State Privacy and Security Coalition, a tech industry group representing companies like Google and Amazon.

The Complexity of the National Data Privacy Debate

The unlikely alliance between a family-owned retail institution like L.L. Bean and global tech giants like Meta offers insight into the intricacies of the ongoing national debate over data privacy laws. As the business of customer data becomes increasingly lucrative and a growing concern for advocates and consumers, the federal government has struggled to pass comprehensive national legislation. Consequently, companies have taken the fight to state legislatures, where they assemble powerful coalitions comprising local businesses and national industries to dilute potential privacy laws.

A review of public records in several states, including California, Delaware, Indiana, and Montana, reveals that local businesses have amplified the tech industry's stance in privacy debates across the country. These arguments often originate from local business groups such as retail associations or state Chambers of Commerce, some of which disclose partnerships with tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Meta. However, it is rare for a nationally renowned brand like L.L. Bean to take a direct position in the debate.

The Battle in Maine: Two Competing Privacy Bills

In Maine, the privacy debate revolves around two potential laws: O'Neil's bill, which is based on a federal law that has stalled but is supported by privacy advocates, and state Sen. Lisa Keim's rival bill, the Maine Consumer Privacy Act. Keim's bill is based on business-friendly legislation that has already been enacted in 11 other states with the backing of the tech industry.

Keim acknowledges that L.L. Bean's testimony played a significant role in shaping Maine lawmakers' perspectives on her bill. In an interview, she stated, "L.L. Bean was incredibly instrumental in how we looked at language and what we're doing."

L.L. Bean maintains that it did not coordinate with Meta or any other tech companies in Maine. The retailer asserts its own views as a long-established business that relies on customer data for analytics and advertising. Furthermore, L.L. Bean claims to already comply with the more stringent privacy law enacted in California in 2018, which has become a de facto national standard for many companies. The company's opposition to O'Neil's proposal aims to "provide a level of continuity among states," according to Jason Sulham, L.L. Bean's manager of public affairs.

The Opposition and Concerns of Small Businesses

State-level consumer privacy laws have emerged from both progressive Democrats and Republicans, including Keim, who are concerned about excessive corporate control over personal data. However, these laws face well-funded opposition from the tech industry, which relies on consumer data as a valuable business asset. Many smaller businesses, as well as national brands like L.L. Bean, also oppose these laws because they rely on customer data for online advertising and understanding consumer behavior. Retailers fear that privacy laws designed to restrict how companies can use consumer data could harm their marketing efforts.

Despite being dissimilar to Big Tech in terms of interests, small businesses have come to depend on tech giants for advertising and outreach. The tech industry previously focused on the advertising capabilities of small businesses when Congress was considering antitrust legislation in 2022. Similarly, when Apple introduced stronger privacy features to prevent unwanted tracking online, Meta opposed it through a blog post titled "Speaking Up For Small Businesses."

TechNet, an industry group including Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Google, has highlighted the potential high costs for small businesses — over $20 billion annually — in legal fees to navigate privacy regulations if each of the 50 states had its own rules. This statistic, often cited to influence state lawmakers considering stricter regulations, originates from a tech industry-funded think tank.

In Maine, both small and large businesses, including L.L. Bean, are represented by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has testified against O'Neil's bill and supports Keim's legislation. A spokesperson for the Maine State Chamber of Commerce stated that its members have "significant concerns about the impacts of the proposed privacy legislation."

The Current State of the Privacy Debate in Maine

The battle between the two privacy bills in Maine has become somewhat foggy. Faced with criticism of her industry-friendly bill, Keim has started to make revisions. These include eliminating an exemption for smaller businesses and requiring companies to obtain "opt-in" consent for data collection, in contrast to the opt-out model implemented by the bills in 11 other states. Keim also expressed interest in strengthening protections in other areas, such as reevaluating a provision that allows companies a chance to rectify violations before facing legal action and removing exemptions for nonprofits and academic institutions.

Keim now finds herself at odds with the industry over some of these changes. TechNet, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce have called for amendments to remove the opt-in requirements.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Maine are seeking a better understanding of the implications of O'Neil's proposed bill. During a work session, held on December 11, legislators posed questions to O'Neil regarding potential exemptions for businesses in Maine and the enforcement of her bill.

Although the authors of the rival bills have been in contact regarding their respective privacy regulations, O'Neil hopes that the Maine legislature can find a middle ground. In her words, "One thing I've been thinking about is, how can we take the elements that are both in my bill and Sen. Keim's bill and harmonize those?" On the other hand, Keim, while working with O'Neil, believes that the two bills cannot be combined due to significant differences in language. Keim's vision for Maine's privacy legislation involves adopting the tech industry's preferred model while strengthening the language.

It is important to note that L.L. Bean has not commented on any of the revisions to Keim's bill. However, the esteemed local institution's influence will not be the sole determining factor. As Keim asserts, "I'm not unduly influenced by any one entity. I'm going to listen to all sides but forge ahead with language that I believe is best suited for Maine."

—————————————————————————————————————————————
By: Alfred Ng
Title: The Role of L.L. Bean in the Privacy Debate: A Complex Intersection of Business and Tech Giants
Sourced From: www.politico.com/news/2023/12/18/ll-bean-joins-the-national-privacy-wars-00132120
Published Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 05:00:00 EST