Virginia Governor Signs Reproductive Health Data Restrictions into Law

by Cameron Cantrell and Felicity Slater 

On March 24, 2025, Governor Youngkin (R) of Virginia signed SB 754—which amends the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) to restrict the collection and processing of “reproductive or sexual health information” and is enforceable through a private right of action—into law. The law will take effect July 1, 2025.  

Entities covered by SB 754, which applies broadly across consumer-facing and business-to-business organizations, will need to implement substantially the same compliance measures in Virginia that they have put in place in Washington State to comply with the My Health, My Data Act. In particular, organizations will need to obtain individuals’ consent before collecting and transferring their personal information when it has even an attenuated relationship to reproductive or sexual health.  

Governor Youngkin signed SB 754 into law on the same day he vetoed a bill that would have regulated high-risk AI systems and social media use by children and teenagers under the age of 16, taking many by surprise. We expect that state legislatures will push the legal envelope with respect to health and reproductive data throughout the year and beyond. 

Scope 

The Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) —which SB 754 modifies—governs “supplier(s) in connection with…consumer transaction[s],” including advertisements, sales, and offers of consumer and business goods and services. A “supplier” is an entity that “advertises, solicits, or engages in consumer transactions, or ... advertises, sells, leases, or licenses goods or services to be resold, leased, or sublicensed by others in consumer transactions.” 

The VCPA does not establish volume or revenue requirements, so this law will apply to a significantly broader range of organizations than those that are currently subject to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), including to entities that operate only in the business-to-business context. The VCPA’s limited exemptions will excuse only a small set of entities such as banks, credit unions, and real estate licensees, from compliance.   

Restricted processing 

For in-scope entities and transactions, the law prohibits “[o]btaining, disclosing, selling, or disseminating any personally identifiable reproductive or sexual health information without the consent of the consumer.”  

“Reproductive or sexual health information” broadly includes “information relating to the past, present, or future reproductive or sexual health of an individual” even if it “is derived or extrapolated from non-health related information.” This includes “[e]fforts to research or obtain reproductive or sexual health information services or supplies, including location information that may indicate an attempt to acquire such services or supplies” and “[b]odily functions, vital signs, measurements, or symptoms related to menstruation or pregnancy.”  

“Reproductive and sexual health information” is defined to exclude HIPAA-covered information as well as records governed by 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2, which applies to records of patients seeking treatment or being treated for substance use disorders, or Virginia’s health code. SB 754 incorporates the VCDPA’s definition of “consent,” which requires “a clear affirmative act signifying a consumer's freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous agreement to process personal data relating to the consumer,” including electronic consent. The VCPA does not explicitly define “sale.”  

Enforcement 

Violating SB 754’s prohibition on the collection or transfer of reproductive or sexual health information is a per se violation of the VCPA, which may be enforced by the state or through a private right of action. Penalties under the private right of action may include the greater of actual damages or $500 (if violation is willful, this increases to the greater of treble actual damages or $1,000), as well as attorney fees and costs.  

Hintze Law PLLC is a Chambers-ranked and Legal 500-recognized, boutique law firm that provides counseling exclusively on global privacy, data security, and AI law. Its attorneys and data consultants support technology, ecommerce, advertising, media, retail, healthcare, and mobile companies, organizations, and industry associations in all aspects of privacy, data security, and AI law. 

Cameron Cantrell is an Associate at Hintze Law PLLC representing companies on AI, privacy, and cybersecurity issues.

Felicity Slater is an Associate at Hintze Law PLLC. Felicity has experience with global data protection issues, including data breach notification laws, privacy impact assessments, GDPR, and privacy statements.

French Competition Authority Fines Apple €150M Alleging Market Power Abuse of Ad Privacy System

By Susan Hintze and Hansenard Piou 

Note that the Autorité has not yet been published the decision in question as it is in process of redacting information relating to trade secrets. Please check back for updates. 

On March 31st, 2025, the French Competition Authority (the Autorité), in collaboration with CNIL, announced Decision 25-D-02 of March 28, 2025, which fined Apple €150 million for allegedly abusing its market position with its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) system. The Autorité, in its summary of the decision, claimed Apple unfairly advantages its own apps and advertising practices while harming third party apps and advertising efforts, including those of small publishers.  

Launched in April 2021, the ATT system requires third-party iOS and iPadOS apps to obtain user consent for collection of data for targeted advertising purposes through a consent-management popup before the app’s use. Upon such consent, the app would gain access to the device’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA). Prior to the launch of the ATT system, several associations raised concern that the ATT process was “an obstacle to the possibilities of carrying out targeted advertising for users of Apple devices,” but the Autorité declined to issue interim measures. 

While acknowledging that Apple’s privacy objectives for the ATT system are legitimate, the Autorité noted Apple’s ability to influence the business models of third-party mobile app publishers and stated that Apple must implement its privacy objectives in a way that balances its responsibility as a dominant operator of a digital platform. The Autorité held that under the French competition law, the ATT system is an abuse of Apple’s dominance as its means for implementing the system is neither necessary nor proportionate to meet those privacy objectives. Instead, the Autorité found Apple’s privacy implementation places an asymmetric burden on third party publishers as compared to Apple’s treatment of its own applications. 

The Autorité based this finding of asymmetry on three factors:

• A December 2022 CNIL opinion stated that third party mobile app publishers are unable to rely on the Apple ATT system’s popup for compliance with their own consent requirements under data protection law. Consequently, mobile apps are forced to obtain two separate consents, resulting in excessively complex consent collection for the user.

• While these systems require two acceptances to grant lawful consent, the denial of consent needs only to be given once.

• While third-party publishers have to collect double consent, such a structure does not apply to Apple’s own apps. Since small adjustments could have prevented this asymmetry, the Autorité found it unnecessary and noncompliant with competition law. 

The Autorité noted that the ATT system affects all app publishers, but it is particularly harmful for smaller publishers without other targeted advertising methods for revenue. 

This collaboration between the Autorité and CNIL, pursuant to its joint December 2023 statement and CNIL’s recommendations for mobile apps, highlights the agencies’ willingness to act jointly to investigate and enforce matters that impact competition and privacy law. 

The case also represents the need for platform providers with market power to consider implementing privacy frameworks that not only safeguard consumers but also safeguard against the potential harmful economic impacts to competitors. Such privacy frameworks should not be unnecessarily complex for users and should not place higher burdens on third parties than the platform provider places on itself. 

Hintze Law PLLC is a Chambers-ranked and Legal 500-recognized, boutique law firm that provides counseling exclusively on global privacy, data security, and AI law. Its attorneys and data consultants support technology, ecommerce, advertising, media, retail, healthcare, and mobile companies, organizations, and industry associations in all aspects of privacy, data security, and AI law. 

Susan Hintze is Co-Managing Partner at Hintze Law PLLC. Recognized by Chambers, Legal 500, & Best Lawyers, Susan and her firm are leaders in their field. Susan serves on the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Board of Directors and is an IAPP Westin Emeritus Fellow. She is also co-chair of the firm’s Regulatory Defense Group.

Hansenard Piou is an Associate at Hintze Law PLLC with experience in global data protection issues, including kids’ global privacy laws, AADC, privacy impact assessments, GDPR, and privacy statements.