TODAY: Tell Your State Rep: Pass a Strong Data Privacy Bill

The Massachusetts House of Representatives will be voting TODAY, on a data privacy bill.

Your precise location data – showing which doctor’s office you visited last month, which NO KINGS rallies you’ve attended, and when and where you drop your kids off every day – is currently for sale on the open market. The shadowy collection and processing of your data by Big Tech and data brokers consistently exposes your private life to bad actors, including Trump’s ICE — just one of many buyers of our precise geolocation data.

Over the past year, civil liberties advocates have been pushing for a robust data privacy bill that does three things:

  1. Data minimization: Organizations should only be able to collect, use, and retain the minimum amount of personal information necessary to fulfill a specific, authorized purpose (Lay terms: If it’s not essential, you can’t collect it, and you certainly keep it.)
  2. Ban on the sale of sensitive data: This includes location data, but also health data, data on immigration status, data on gender identity and sexual orientation, biometric data, etc.
  3. Private right of action: If your rights are violated, you should be able to sue.

The House bill contains some major wins, but also some clear areas for improvement.

What’s good in the bill: strong protections to ban the sale of location data; private right of action

What needs improvement: data minimization language; protections for sensitive data other than location data

Can you write to your state rep today about the importance of passing a strong bill? Read on for what that means.


Here’s what a strong bill looks like.

Join us in supporting the following amendments backed by our allies in the civil liberties, civil rights, and labor advocacy community:

  • #3 to reiterate that use of employer owned devices is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, filed be Rep. Field
  • #7 to restrict employer ability to disclose employee data without express employee consent, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #8 to limit the transfer of employee data outside of operationally necessary reasons, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #10 to ban surveillance pricing for groceries, filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #13 to strengthen the definition of “affirmative consent,” filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #16 to fix the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Decker
  • #21 to strengthen the private right of action, filed by Rep. Cataldo
  • #33 to clarify the definition of “transfer,” filed by Rep. Rogers
  • #36 to protect LGBTQ youth data, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #38 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Kilcoyne
  • #40 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Owens

Join us in opposing the following amendments:

  • #11, which weakens privacy notification, filed by Rep. Phillips
  • #15, which creates a wholesale exemption to the bill for banks and financial institutions, filed by Rep. Chris Markey
  • #17, which creates a wholesale exemption for insurers, filed by Rep. Biele
  • #18, which eliminates the PRA, filed by Rep. Biele
  • #19, which creates an exemption to the LSA for “mobility” data, filed by Rep. Kilcoyne
  • #20, which creates a loophole in the non-discrimination protections, filed by Rep. Cusack

50+ human rights groups sign letter opposing MA “age verification” bills, hold press conference at State House with Rep Mike Connolly

BOSTON, MA—A growing coalition of human rights, LGBTQ+, civil liberties, racial justice, and environmental advocacy groups will release a letter signed by more than 50 organizations on Wednesday, May 13th, expressing grave concern about dangerous and unconstitutional online ID check bills proposed by the Massachusetts House and Governor Maura Healey.

Leaders from organizations that signed the letter will hold a press conference in front of the State House at 10am on Wednesday, May 13th, urging the Governor and the House to work with experts and impacted communities to make significant changes to the legislation.

Signers of the letter, led by Fight for the Future, include the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Sierra Club of MA, Partners in Sex Education, United American Indians of New England (UAINE), The Coalition for Student Mental Health, Progressive Massachusetts, Muslim Justice League, Mass 50501, Act On Mass, and dozens more. 

See a preview of the letter and current list of signers here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

Rep. Mike Connolly, who voted against the House bill H.5366, will join advocates for the press conference. Advocates will hold signs, make short remarks, and take questions from the press before going into the State House to deliver the letter to House and Senate leadership as well as the Governor’s office. 

Fight for the Future has released a working draft proposal of an alternative model bill that would address Big Tech harms without undermining privacy or human rights. The group has met with Governor Healey and the Attorney General’s office after holding a protest outside the governor’s broadcast on WGBH last week. Fight for the Future director Evan Greer and Nathalie Marachél of Northeastern University penned an op-ed for the Boston Globe explaining the privacy, civil liberties, and free expression problems with the current legislation. 

Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org or 978-852-6457, to RSVP for the press conference or arrange a separate interview. We will have photos and video available for press later in the day.

Members of the coalition have offered the following statements to press:

“Health education is built on the principle that young people are best protected not by cutting them off from information but by giving them the tools they need to navigate a complex world. We are especially concerned about LGBTQ+ teens, young people in abusive homes, and adolescents in mental health crises who rely on online communities for support they may not find anywhere else. This bill would put those young people at greater risk, not less. A real legislative response should focus on privacy protections and algorithmic accountability, not surveillance and restricted access to information. We urge Massachusetts lawmakers to scrap H. 5349 and pursue policy that is genuinely centered on the wellbeing of young people.” -Megara Bell, Director of Partners in Sex Education

“Mass 50501 stands firmly against handing our personal data to large tech companies — especially when they are so willing to share that data with our federal authoritarian government. We also stand with marginalized youth who often feel isolated until finding their communities online. It is true that social media can do harm, especially to the mental health of children. However, the way this bill is written will disproportionately affect LGBTQIA+, disabled and neurodivergent youth, while opening the door to surveillance overreach for all citizens of Massachusetts by for-profit tech companies. The problem is real, this solution is reckless, invasive, and puts the very people it claims to protect at greater risk.” – Rebecca Winter (she/her), Executive Director, Mass 50501

“The Intersex community is still so young that we don’t have accessible resources; and the sex and gender resources that do exist don’t know how to support us. Intersex youth and adults alike are totally dependent on social media for peer support, patient centered medical support and the lived experiences of our elders.” -Esther Morris Leidolf, President and Founder of MRKH Intersex

Online verification policies have proven to be a data privacy nightmare. Rather than reining in Big Tech, as legislators have portrayed the bill as doing, it expands new frontiers for them to profit from our data and puts marginalized communities at risk.” -Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts 

“We share the concern about young people’s wellbeing online, but this bill raises serious questions that lawmakers haven’t answered. Age verification means collecting government IDs and face scans — data that can be hacked, sold, or misused. The solution to protecting young people is not putting their private information at greater risk. It’s ensuring they have access to comprehensive sex education that builds the critical thinking and media literacy skills they need to navigate the digital world safely.” – Callie Simon (she/her), Executive Director, SIECUS

“As an organization grounded in the Unitarian Universalist faith, we oppose H.5366 as this bill directly threatens many of our UU principles including; ‘justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.’ This bill endangers the safety of our children and youth, puts them at risk, robs them of their right not to be surveilled, and in this way denies them the justice, equity, and compassion to live free from surveillance and censorship.” –Rev. Jo Murphy, UU Mass Action

“This House bill is in effect an ID check for everyone to go online. Digital Fourth strongly opposes legal mandates for technological verification of people’s ages online. This bill won’t protect kids from the negative consequences of Big Tech; instead, they will kill the non-Big Tech Internet, by imposing expensive burdens on volunteers who operate community forums, listservs and blogs. The House should focus on proven, non-corporate-sponsored solutions, like education on online harms and universal user protections that don’t target or disempower youth, and that therefore don’t require invasive online ID checks.” –Alex Marthews, Co-Chair, Digital Fourth

“After witnessing the current horrors of the Trump administration and the failures of social media platforms like Discord to adequately prevent data breaches, I cannot imagine how anyone thinks that age verification would make a single person in Massachusetts safer. Our personal information should not be put on the marketplace for anyone to buy and abuse, from Meta to Stephen Miller. The legislature should drop this effort and instead send the Consumer Data Privacy Act to Gov. Healey’s desk and actually keep us safe online.” – Noah Risley (they/them), Jamaica Plain Progressives Steering Committee Member.

“Intersectional Innovation and Impact Labs opposes age verification requirements and similar forms of digital surveillance targeting youth due to serious privacy concerns and the ways these measures widen existing digital divides, particularly for vulnerable communities seeking access to critical resources. With 28% of Boston’s population being foreign-born, surveillance measures such as ID checks will not effectively address online harms against youth, but instead risk deepening economic and health inequities by limiting access to essential information and support.” -Muhammad Burhan (They/Them), Executive Director of III Labs.

NEW LETTER: Massachusetts social media ban will help Trump and will not keep kids safe from Big Tech

See the original at https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

The Massachusetts House has advanced H. 5349 (now H. 5366), a draconian and unconstitutional bill that would ban minors from social media, force social media platforms to enable parental surveillance of teenagers’ online activity, and subject everyone to privacy-invading online ID checks in order to access information or speak out online.

Dozens of civil liberties, racial justice, LGBTQ+, press freedom, abortion access, and human rights organizations have spoken out against these dangerous and misguided “age verification” laws, several of which have had their constitutionality questioned by the courts.

And a Massachusetts-based coalition of LGBTQ groups including the The Queer Neighborhood Council, III Labs, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, ACLU of MA, and the Transgender Emergency Fund have specifically been pressuring local lawmakers on this issue. Late last year, the Boston City Council introduced a resolution condemning “age verification” and censorship legislation, citing harm to the city’s LGBTQ youth. 

Trans youth in Massachusetts are already terrified of losing their health care. They’re being terrorized by a bigoted administration. Now Massachusetts lawmakers are advancing legislation that would cut them off from access to lifesaving online resources and support? Shameful doesn’t begin to cover it. 

Big Tech social media companies cause real harm, and lawmakers are right to want to do something about it. They should pass privacy, antitrust, and algorithmic justice legislation that actually makes sense and is enforceable. Instead, Massachusetts legislators are actively helping Trump’s authoritarian takeover by pushing for legislation that expands censorship and surveillance. This bill is a gift to the Palantirs of the world—expanding Trump’s surveillance state by forcing everyone to associate their government ID with everything they post at a time when the DOJ is sending subpoenas to social media companies demanding they hand over the names of people running accounts critical of ICE. 

This legislation would make kids less safe, not more safe, while forcing everyone to upload their government ID or submit to a facial recognition scan in order to post online. The definition of “social media” in the bill is so wildly broad it would sweep in almost the entire Internet, including resources like Wikipedia. 

Even red states with conservative supermajorities have avoided some of the parental surveillance provisions present in the Massachusetts bill that raise serious concerns for the safety of LGBTQ youth and young people’s right to privacy. Requiring social media platforms to verify parental consent is completely unworkable. The logistics of this requirement are a nightmare: proving that an adult is a guardian of a child requires giving very sensitive information to social media platforms that are already ripe for data breaches and presents even more obstacles for young people in abusive families, foster care, and parents navigating complicated custody dynamics. This is an impractical and invasive idea that has been abandoned in almost every other version of this type of legislation across the country. 

Age verification and censorship legislation will hurt kids and benefit Big Tech. If Massachusetts lawmakers want to address harm, they should listen to experts, scrap this terrible bill, and instead advance privacy legislation that strikes at the heart of social media companies’ harmful business practices.

We recommend Massachusetts lawmakers engage with human rights groups on their concerns with this bill. We oppose any version of this bill that mandates invasive age verification, bans young people from social media, requires parental surveillance of teenagers, and strips everyone on the internet regardless of age of their anonymity.

Additional resources on this topic:

Signed,

Act on Mass
Advocates for Youth
Arts Equity Group
ArtsWorcester
Asian American Resource Workshop
Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network – Massachusetts
Boston Democratic Socialists of America
Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective
Brandeis Democrats
Digital Fourth
EducateUS
Episcopal City Misson
Fight for the Future
For Artists By Artists
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Frizz Media
GreenRoots
Guardian Project
IfNotNow Boston
Indivisible Upper Cape
Intersectional Innovation and Impact (III) Labs
Jamaica Plain for Palestine
Jamaica Plain Progressives
Jewish Voice for Peace – Boston
Kavod Boston
Mass 50501
Massachusetts Pirate Party
Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC)
MassEquality
Matahari Women’s Worker Center
Mid Cape Indivisible
MRKH Intersex
Muslim Justice League
Neighborhood Grow Plan
North Shore Progressives
Old Pros Org
Pa’lante Transformative Justice
Parenting is Political
Partners in Sex Education
Progressive Massachusetts
Protect Trans Futures
Secular Student Alliance
SIECUS
Sierra Club Massachusetts
Somerville for Palestine
Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice (SCIJ)
Student Press Law Center
The Coalition for Student Mental Health
The Cordial Eye
The Queer Neighborhood Council
The Tor Project
Unitarian Universalist Mass Action Network
United American Indians of New England (UAINE)
V’ahavtah: A Judaism Beyond Zionism Synagogue
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Yale Privacy Lab

News Covers PM’s Call for Openness about OpenAI Contract

MASSterList (February 21, 2026)

There’s mounting pressure from the left on Healey’s decision last week to launch an executive branch artificial intelligence tool powered by industry behemoth OpenAI.

Progressive Mass took issue with OpenAI’s collaboration with federal immigration enforcement authorities and the way Healey locked the state into a contract with the company without first bargaining with state workers. The group is urging supporters to contact the governor’s office to demand more information.

In a Substack post, Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven echoed the group’s complaints that the Healey administration has declined to release the state’s contract with OpenAI and taking issue with the procurement process.

Massachusetts Playbook (February 20, 2026)

AI-N’T IT — Gov. Maura Healey’s announcement last week about a new partner with OpenAI that will provide ChatGPT-powered artificial intelligence assistants to roughly 40,000 executive-branch employees drew some early criticism from local unions. It’s also seeing some backlash from the left.

Progressive Mass is urging Bay Staters to reach out to the governor’s office to request “the release of the full procurement documents and the data processing agreement and ask why workers, consumer advocates and civil rights advocates were excluded from this decision.” Somerville state Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven is also taking up the cause on Beacon Hill, as she wrote in a Substack post this week.

MA Senate Passes Strong Data Privacy Protections

Earlier today, the MA Senate voted 40 to 0 to pass the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which would — among other steps — ban the sale of sensitive data (including location data) and impose meaningful data minimization on companies harvesting our personal information. You can read the MA Senate’s fact sheet here.

During debate, the Senate passed two amendments that we, along with groups in the Location Shield Act, had advocated for:

  • Amendment 4, which extends the ban on sales of geolocation data to cover anyone who visits Massachusetts for any reason, including travel to the state to pursue personal health care.
  • Amendment 52, which ensures that businesses cannot sell sensitive data, regardless of whether they are otherwise exempt under the act.

The bill now moves to the House. 99 state representatives have co-sponsored the bill, but pressure will be needed to get past the Legislature’s characteristic inertia.

“The purchase and sale of cell phone location data empowers bad actors.”

Wednesday, April 8, 2025 

Chair Moore, Chair Farley-Bouvier, and Members of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.197: An Act to protect safety and privacy by stopping the sale of location data and H.86: An Act to protect location privacy, known collectively as the Location Shield Act. 

This Saturday, tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents rallied to protest the chaos, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration. 

If you attended a rally, you know when you arrived and when you left, and where you went next. Your friends and family might know that too, at least part. 

But do you know who doesn’t need to know that? Bad actors like Elon Musk. 

Right now, there is no law that prevents anyone with a credit card from purchasing cell phone location data. 

The purchase and sale of cell phone location data empowers bad actors: right-wing extremists seeking to target individuals seeking abortion care or gender-affirming care, domestic abusers seeking to track their victims, predatory bosses seeking to spy on their employees, the list goes on. And by attacking privacy rights, it also weakens the basic rights of free expression and dissent in a democracy. 

We have already seen the Trump administration detain and threaten to deport students merely for the act of attending protests, and they are not subtle about their desire to ramp up targeting and to target citizens as well. We should not be giving them any more tools to do so. 

As your chamber deliberates on our Commonwealth’s response to the disasters in DC, we urge you to make this bill a part of it. 250 years ago this month, Massachusetts was the site of taking a stand against the abuses of civil liberties by a monarchical government, and that is a legacy that we should continue. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts