Witness John Miller, senior VP of policy and general counsel for the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), told Congress Tuesday (June 14) that it was on the right track, sort of, with the bipartisan federal privacy bill's definition of "targeted advertising" but it would "prevent the ad-supported internet business model from continuing."

ITI members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), and Twitter, to name only a few.

The American Data Privacy and Protection Act would allow users to opt out of that "targeted advertising" when surfing the web, whose free content has been supported by such ads.

Miller said everyone agrees privacy legislation is needed -- one reason is so that states do not come up with their own patchwork of privacy laws, a model Miller called "unsustainable."

Also: IAB Tech Lab Launches GPP Global Ad Privacy Permissions Standard

But Miller did point to state laws in Virginia, Colorado and Utah for their definitions of targeted advertising, saying the draft would be better if it more closely followed those states, which he said "struck the right balance to enable internet companies to reasonably advertise to their users on their sites while protecting their privacy interests.”

While Miller said the draft bill deserves thoughtful consideration and is "the most credible bipartisan and bicameral effort yet to advance comprehensive federal privacy legislation in the United States," ITI has a lot of issues with it.

In addition to the definition of targeted advertising, ITI said the definition of "sensitive covered data" is overly broad. The definition of what qualifies as sensitive info deserving of special protection has been one of the major sticking points of past attempts to achieve bipartisan consensus on a way forward.

ITI also said the bill does not distinguish sufficiently between the different entities that use data or their obligations regarding its privacy.

Edge providers also have an issue with the bill's private right of action, which allows users to sue for violations of data privacy. ITI said that given the "already strong" enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department provisions in the draft, "it is reasonable to ask whether including a Private Right of Action is necessary to ensure robust enforcement."

While the private right of action has been narrowed, ITI said it is still too broad and will likely lead to a "wave of litigation."

Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) suggested in his opening statement that Big Tech was essentially the problem that needed fixing.

"Comprehensive, national privacy legislation is necessary to limit the excesses of Big Tech and ensure Americans can safely navigate the digital world," Pallone said. "There is simply no real “choice” when consumers must trade their personal data to use essential services. People cannot navigate the modern world without their smartphone or email address. And with the minimal protections that apply today, most Americans have little reason to think their data won’t be used in unanticipated ways."

Since 2019, ITI has been arguing it is part of the solution, offering up what it says is a legislative roadmap for a federal privacy law. ■

INCOMPAS, whose members include Netflix, Google, and Amazon, said South Korea's proposed mandated network use fees are targeted to U.S. streamers and would create barriers to both consumer choice and content provider market access.

That is according to a new report from INCOMPAS in conjunction with the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) on the interconnection fees South Korea is considering requiring Netflix and other streamers to pay ISPs there.

Netflix last year sued SK Broadband over exacting such a fee but lost in a Korean court.

Also: INCOMPAS Tells FCC That Interconnections Need Government Minding

Now the South Korean government is considering making such "network use" fees obligatory for larger players, like Netflix.

"The latest legislative proposals would set a dangerous precedent by imposing disruptive and unwarranted taxes on the delivery of online content, which would ultimately raise costs for end users and CPs [content providers], and disincentivize the innovation that has underpinned the growth and socio-economic benefits of the internet-driven economy in Korea and around the globe," the report said.

INCOMPAS said streamers already represent a key part of the online value chain and that such fees would give ISPs "disproportionate and unjustified leverage to extract payments" from content providers. It said the proposed fees ignore the fact that content providers invest heavily on infrastructure -- cables, data centers, caches -- that reduce the traffic "burden" on ISPs.

"End users pay ISPs for an internet connection with the expectation that it will allow them to reach all legal content available on the internet, without discrimination based on whether CPs have paid 'network use fees' or not," the report said. "CPs do not 'push' traffic at ISP customers. Rather, the end users request that content enabled by CPs be delivered to them by their ISP. Similarly, CPs also do not 'use' ISPs' last-mile broadband networks; end users do, and they pay for that network usage. Mandating 'network use fees' would therefore lead to ISPs double charging by assessing CPs for services for which end users have already paid."

The report alleges a mandatory fee would incentivize ISPs to allow traffic congestion or even purposely limit performance.

It would also be a double tax, said the report: "End users pay ISPs for an internet connection with the expectation that it will allow them to reach all legal content available on the internet, without discrimination based on whether CPs have paid 'network use fees' or not. ... Mandating 'network use fees' would therefore lead to ISPs double charging by assessing CPs for services for which end users have already paid."