Advertisers are pushing back on a privacy bill currently in the Hawaii legislature.

The Association of National Advertisers has written the leadership of the legislature to oppose HI SB 1009.

Also Read: Maryland Reverses Veto of Digital Ad Tax

According to ANA, in a blog posted Wednesday (Feb. 17), the bill would impede consumer access to products and services, boost compliance costs for businesses hit hard by COVID-19 (which are usually passed on to consumers) and is "just another piece in the continuously evolving jigsaw puzzle of privacy regulation at the state level."

Also Read: Ad Group Offers Up Version of Privacy Bill

ANA has pushed for national privacy legislation as a way to avoid the compliance nightmare of a balkanized landscape of individual privacy laws by preempting them in favor of a national framework it argues "protects consumers and allows the data driven economy to thrive."

Google has won a preliminary victory in a decision that could help other U.S. search engines and edge providers navigate the European Union's privacy shield framework without having to block U.S. and other countries' access to info.

Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union Maciej Szpunar, in an advisory (non-binding) opinion to the court, says a French Commission ruling that Google should have to block access ("de-referencing" in EU parlance) to offending sites on all its domain names, not just those from EU countries, is overly broad.

The advocate general's job is to propose solutions to cases before the court.

Google had balked at the French ruling, only removing the links from searches performed in the EU countries, and proposed geo-blocking to make sure that the sites did not show up in EU countries, while still available to countries outside the EU.

France fired back with a penalty, reported to be €100,000. Google appealed and France referred the issue to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. In guidance to the court Thursday for that ruling, Szpunar said "search requests made outside the EU should not be affected by the de-referencing of the search results."

He said the right to "be forgotten" must be balanced with the "legitimate public interest in accessing the information being sought."

If worldwide "de-referencing" were upheld, he said, "the EU would not be able to define and determine a right to receive information, let alone balance it against the other fundamental rights to data protection and to privacy."

He did not rule out de-referencing on a worldwide scale in some instances, but said the case before the court was not one of those.

He told the court that when agreeing to an EU de-referencing request, a search engine opertor should not be not required to apply it to all domain names, and should be encouraged to use geo-blocking and other methods to insure full de-referencing of EU searches.

Technically, the Court of Justice decision won't decide the matter, either. It is up to individual courts in EU countries to dispose of the cases they refer to the Court of Justice, but they are bound by their EU membership to decide it "in accordance with the Court of Justice's decision, so as a practical matter that decision holds sway.

That advisory was just fine with the Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include Google and and major edge providers.

“The Advocate General’s opinion respects access to information around the world and we hope the European Court of Justice follows the balance and consideration given to global internet users,": said CCIA president Ed Black. "Those who have fought for access to information for decades have grave concerns about any one person or government having the ability to delete information - no matter how tempting that prospect may be in any one example.”

The Commerce Department has released the full text of the EU-US Privacy Shield framework, the voluntary agreement companies sign on to to protect over a quarter of a billion dollars in cross-border digital information flows.

Once it becomes official, it replaces the safe harbor agreement that an EU court invalidated over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

The EU still must approve the agreement. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the agreement. In addition, the State Department will establish a Privacy Shield Ombudsperson for inquiries about U.S. government intelligence practices. The Justice Department is also providing a letter spelling out the limitations and safeguards.

The U.S. congress did its part earlier this month, passing legislation, the Judicial Redress Act, that gives EU member citizens, at least those in countries considered U.S. allies, privacy rights similar to those of U.S. citizens for data stored in this country and the legal standing to seeks judicial remedies here for mishandling of that data.

Passage was considered key to establishing the new framework.

The framework agreement was struck Feb. 2. ""The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is a tremendous victory for privacy, individuals, and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic," said Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker in a statement.

"We have spent more than two years constructing a modernized and comprehensive framework that addresses the concerns of the European Court of Justice and protects privacy."

“The Privacy Shield will provide strong privacy safeguards, legal certainty for companies and enhances transatlantic trust," said Computer & Communications Industry Association International Policy Director Christian Borggreen.

“Privacy Shield will enable companies safely to transfer data between the world’s two largest economies. It bridges the privacy frameworks of the EU and U.S. which are essentially equivalent. “We applaud the EU and U.S. for agreeing to strong privacy safeguards that limit government access to commercial data. The Privacy Shield includes strong U.S. Government commitments, many company obligations, and privacy safeguards for consumers which will enable commerce and help to restore trust.”

“We welcome the publication of the text of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, which aims to create a strengthened mechanism for transatlantic data transfers, consistent with the high levels of privacy protection in both the European Union and United States,” Global Policy Josh Kallmer said. “After our initial review, it appears that the two sides have achieved the objective of securing an agreement that both enhances privacy protections and provides the certainty needed to promote innovation and economic growth."

Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), which represents software and digital content companies in the United States and Europe, today welcomed the release of the text and related documents for the new Safe Harbor agreement – the EU-US Privacy Shield.

Mark MacCarthy, SVP of public policy for the Software & Information Industry Association, urged swift EU sign-off.

“The Privacy Shield creates an essential legal and political foundation for the free flow of data across the Atlantic.

It provides a mechanism that allows companies that wish to transfer personal data from Europe to the United States to do so in a way which complies with European laws and regulations," he said.

“This is a critical milestone in the effort to protect the transfer of data across the Atlantic,” said Linda Moore, president and CEO of TechNet, in a statement. “The transatlantic flow of data is the lynchpin of U.S.-EU trade relations, and a clear framework to protect these transfers is vital for American and European shared interests in promoting innovation and data protection.”

The agreement affects thousands of U.S. companies storing of EU member state citizens. The U.S. and EU have been working on a new agreement since the 2013 Snowden revelations, but the court October 2016 decision imposed that deadline.