(The Center Square) – Two Michigan bills pitched as “child safety legislation” were withdrawn this week after advocacy groups raised concerns about privacy and data collection.
House Bill 4429 and Senate Bill 284 – identical, bipartisan measures titled the Digital Age Assurance Act – were advancing through the state legislature until they were pulled by their sponsors.
That came following outreach from the Michigan Fair Elections Institute and other policy groups.
The bills would have required device manufacturers and operating systems to “estimate” a user’s age at activation and transmit a continuous “digital age signal” to apps and websites the user attempted to access.
Critics said the legislation lacked key privacy protections, including limits on data use, restrictions on combining data with other personal information and requirements for deletion.
“The infrastructure these bills would have created is a persistent, always-on identity layer baked into the operating system of every device in Michigan, with no accompanying privacy protections,” said Patrice Johnson, chair and co-founder of the Michigan Fair Elections Institute. “These bills would not have improved that standing; they would have deepened the gap and reaped long-term negative effects on fair elections.”
The group said it shared its findings with lawmakers April 4, prompting responses from legislators across the aisle.
“Thanks for catching this! That’s why we need you!” Rep. Gina Johnsen, R-Portland, a co-sponsor of the House bill, said in a response shared by MFEI.
The institute raised concerns about liability provisions in the bills, arguing they could allow technology platforms to avoid responsibility for underage users if they relied on age estimates provided by device manufacturers.
The group further questioned the origins of the legislation, saying the bills closely resembled proposals introduced in other states and were likely based on model legislation proposed by the Digital Childhood Alliance, the national organization promoting this legislation across more than 20 states.
“These two bills are legislative siblings—they share the same core architecture and even the same name,” said Eric Rasmussen, a University of Michigan privacy advocate who reviewed the measures who helped lead the effort to pull the bills. “This is not a coincidence.”
Sen. Ruth Johnson, R-Holly, questioned whether the legislation could be revised.
“Have the bill’s sponsors been notified? Can it be amended to make it a good bill?” she said.
Just two days after the effort began, on April 6, the House bill had been withdrawn, followed shortly after by the Senate version.
Bill sponsors Rep. Brad Paquette, R-Niles, and Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, are now working with advocacy groups on potential replacement legislation, according to the MFEI.
Advocacy groups recommend this type of bill be part of a comprehensive “consumer data privacy framework,” which would include:
• The right to know what data is collected about them,
• The right to have it deleted,
• The right to opt out of its sale, and
• Prohibition of the use of data for purposes beyond for which it was originally collected.
Patrice Johnson said this is a good example of how grassroots organizations can have a real impact on state policies and the legislative process.
“Those who seek to influence policy through concealed funding and model legislation rely on the assumption that no one is paying close enough attention,” she said. “We are grateful to everyone who engaged with our findings—and especially to Rep. Paquette and Sen. Cherry for their openness and their commitment to getting this right for Michigan families.”
The Digital Childhood Alliance did not respond to a request for comment by time of the article’s publication.
