Lawmakers in Ohio on Tuesday unveiled data privacy legislation that aims to create new data rights for residents in the state, allowing them to have more control over their personal data.
"Federal and state laws do not adequately protect how companies use your personal data and what rights you have to that information," Ohio’s Lt. Governor Jon Husted said in a statement. "Without action in this space on the federal level, it’s important that our state take the lead. The Ohio Personal Privacy Act implements the necessary tools to keep Ohioans’ data safe and gives them control over their digital presence."
The Ohio Personal Privacy Act will allow residents the ability to have their personal data deleted and it will also allow them to request that businesses do not sell their information.
It will also increase transparency by requiring businesses to disclose where consumer data is being sold, applying primarily to businesses with at least $25 million in gross revenue or businesses that handle a lot of consumer data.
Residents can make complaints about law violations through the Attorney General’s office.
In the absence of sweeping federal legislation, Ohio lawmakers noted that about 20 other states – including California, Colorado and Virginia – have taken measures to protect residents’ data.
Regulating technology is a hot topic for both consumers and lawmakers, as leaders grapple with protecting privacy, free speech and individual rights without infringing on the rights of businesses.
As previously reported by FOX Business, an effort to crack down on large technology companies spearheaded by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was held up in courts at the end of last month when it was struck down by a federal judge.
The law allows residents to fight back against de-platforming and censorship, allowing them to sue tech companies for up to $100,000 in damages for each proven claim in a bid to ensure companies are more transparent about their content moderation practices.
The also law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently.
The judge noted that the legislation was an effort to rein in providers that were deemed "too large and too liberal."
"Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest," U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle wrote in his decision.