State Legislation

Don’t Sleep on Maryland: The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act Will Keep Health and Wellness Companies Up at Night

The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (“MODPA” or the “Act”), which takes effect October 1, 2025, establishes a set of novel requirements that will have a particular impact for companies operating in the health and wellness sectors. 

Most notably, the MODPA: 

  • Bans the “sale” of “sensitive data,” a term which is defined to include “personal data that a controller uses to identify a consumer’s physical or mental health status;” 

  • Requires that entities only collect and process “sensitive data” when doing so is “strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer;” 

  • Forbids covered entities from geofencing “mental health” or “reproductive or sexual health” facilities for the purpose of identifying, tracking, collecting data from, or sending notifications to consumers about their health; and 

  • Grants consumers the right to opt-out of “profiling” conducted for the purpose of making solely automated decisions resulting in the provision or denial of “health care services.” 

The structure of the Act’s exceptions provides far less leeway for non-Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) covered entities than do the exemptions provided by certain other state comprehensive privacy laws. 

Companies that collect and process health and wellness-related data will need to adapt their compliance programs to comply with the MODPA. Most critically, such entities must establish mechanisms to exclude sensitive data from sale data flows, to determine what data is “strictly necessary” for the provision of its products and services, and to exclude “sensitive data” that is not “strictly necessary” for such purposes from the scope of their collection and processing. 

Applicability 

The MODPA governs persons (not a defined term) that do business in Maryland or that target products or services as Maryland residents and that, during the prior calendar year, “(1) controlled or processed the personal data of at least 35,000 [Maryland residents] …or (2) controlled or processed the personal data of at least 10,000 [Maryland residents]…and derived more than 20% of its gross revenue from the sale of personal data.” §14–4602(1)

The Act exempts: 

  • Protected Health Information (“PHI”) covered Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) but does not provide entity-level exemptions for HIPAA Covered Entities or their Business Associates; 

  • Medical records data governed by Maryland’s medical records law, but only when that data is “held by an entity that is a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA;” and 

  • Data that has been de-identified in accordance with HIPAA, but only when data was derived from HIPAA-covered Individually Identifiable Health Information (“IIHI”) or “personal information consistent with the human subject protection requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” §14–4603(B)(1)-(6) 

Requirements 

The MODPA creates main two buckets of substantive requirements that will impact companies operating in the health and wellness spaces:  

  • A set of restrictive obligations for companies that collect and process “consumer health data,” §14–460(I)(1), and  

  • A separate set of requirements for the collection and processing of “sensitive personal data,” a term which it defines to include “consumer health data” as well as “genetic and biometric data” and data that reveals information about an individual’s “sex life.” §14–460(GG) 

The MODPA’s “consumer health data”-specific requirements forbid covered persons from: (1) granting an employee or contractor access to “consumer health data” unless the employee or contractor is subject to a duty of confidentiality or confidentiality is a condition of their employment; (2) sharing “consumer health data” with a processor unless the processor signs a contract that meets the Act’s requirements (see §14-4608); or (3) geofencing a “mental health” or “reproductive or sexual health” facility “for the purpose of identifying, tracking, or collecting data from, or sending any notification to a consumer regarding the consumer’s consumer health data.” §14–4604(1)-(3) 

The MODPA’s “sensitive data”-specific requirements (1) flatly prohibit the “sale” of “sensitive data” and (2) establish a novel data minimization standard, forbidding entities from collecting, processing, or sharing “sensitive personal information” unless such “collection or processing is strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer to whom the personal data pertains.” §14–4607(A)(1)-(2) 

It’s not clear how this data minimization standard will interact with the MODPA’s separate internal use exception, which could provide opportunities for entities to collect and process “sensitive data” for internal uses beyond those that are “strictly necessary” to provide the products and services that a consumer requests. This exception provides that an obligation imposed under the Act “may not restrict a controller’s or processor’s ability to collect, use, or retain personal data for internal use to: (iii) perform internal operations that are: 1. reasonably aligned with the expectations of the consumer or can be reasonably anticipated based on the consumer’s existing relationship with the controller; or 2. otherwise compatible with processing data in furtherance of: a. the provision of a product or service specifically requested by a consumer; or b. the performance of a contract to which the consumer is a party.” §14–4612(B)(2) 

The Act requires controllers to conduct data protection impact assessments, or DPIAs, “for each of the controller’s processing activities that present a heightened risk of harm to a consumer.” “Heightened risk of harm” is defined for purposes of this section to include any processing of “sensitive personal data.” §14–4610(b) Finally, the MODPA requires controllers to provide details in their privacy notices about the categories of “sensitive personal data” that they process and share with third parties. §14–4607(D) 

Consumer Rights 

Along with standard rights to opt out of the processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising and sale, the MODPA gives consumers the right to opt-out of “profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects,” including decisions that result in the provision or denial of access to health care services. §14–4605(B)(7)  

Enforcement 

Violations of the MODPA’s requirements are deemed to violate the state’s consumer protection act and are enforceable by the Maryland Attorney General (the “MD AG” or the “AG”). The MD AG may, but is not required to, provide companies with a right to cure before bringing enforcement actions under the Act, if it determines that a cure is possible. §14–4613; §14-4614 

 Amendments 

The Maryland Legislature is currently considering HB 1365, which would amend the MODPA’s restriction on the processing of personal data to align with those contained in other state comprehensive privacy laws. The amendment as currently drafted would not impact the Act’s sensitive data-focused restrictions. 

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.

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.

 

Kate Black is a Partner at Hintze Law PLLC and is chair of the firm’s Health and Biotech Privacy Group, and co-chair of the Regulatory Defense Group, and Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Group.

New York Legislature Passes Extraordinarily Restrictive Health Data Privacy Bill

New York Legislature Passes Extraordinarily Restrictive Health Data Privacy Bill

By Mike Hintze and Felicity Slater

Last year, we wrote about a proposed New York State law that would have significant impacts for entities that process health and wellness related data. That bill failed to pass before the 2024 legislative session ended. But today, in the early days of the 2025 session, the New York State legislature has passed Senate Bill S929 (SB S929), which is essentially unchanged from last year’s bill.  

Read More

In ‘Holy Redeemer’ Settlement Agreement, OCR Continues to Prioritize Privacy Protections for Reproductive Health Information

In ‘Holy Redeemer’ Settlement Agreement, OCR Continues to Prioritize Privacy Protections for Reproductive Health Information

by Felicity Slater and Kate Black

On November 26, 2024, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a resolution agreement and corrective plan with Pennsylvania’s Holy Redeemer Hospital (Holy Redeemer). The agreement settles OCR’s claim that Holy Redeemer disclosed a patient’s protected health information (PHI)—including intimate reproductive health details—without a permissible purpose or valid authorization from the patient in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 8: Notice Obligations

By Mike Hintze

When it comes into effect, the Washington My Health My Data Act (MHMDA or the Act) will impose new privacy notice obligations on regulated entities. The Act requires specific privacy disclosures relating to data that meets the very broad definition of “consumer health data.” It appears to require regulated entities to draft, post, link to, and maintain a separate “Consumer Health Data Privacy Policy” that will be largely, but not entirely, redundant of their existing privacy statement(s).

Because the Consumer Health Data Privacy Policy will be publicly available and easily scrutinized by plaintiffs’ lawyers and the Washington Attorney General, mistakes implementing this obligation are likely to be a key source of costly and disruptive litigation. Regulated entities will therefore need to take great care in meeting the Act’s notice requirements which are, in some respects, unusual and unexpected. 

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act – Part 7: Biometric Data

By Mike Hintze & Jevan Hutson

Biometric data is among the broad range of “consumer health data” regulated by the Washington My Health My Data Act (MHMDA). In light of MHMDA’s broad definition of biometric data, GDPR-level consent requirements, new obligations, and private right of action, the Act dramatically changes and complicates the regulation of biometric data in Washington state and is poised to become the most disruptive change in U.S. biometric privacy law since Illinois’ BIPA.

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 6: Data Subject Rights

By Mike Hintze

The Washington My Health My Data Act provides consumers with several rights, including a right of access, a right to delete, a right to withdraw consent, and a right to not be discriminated against for exercising their rights. While each of these rights can be found in other privacy laws and so, at a high level, do not seem particularly surprising here, the ways they are included in this Act are unique, create uncertainty, and in some cases go well beyond what exists in any other privacy law.  As a result, regulated entities seeking to comply with them will face difficult, costly, and disruptive implementation challenges (and with respect to the deletion right, the potential for catch-22 situations where full legal compliance may be impossible). These challenges, along with the Act’s private right of action, set up a significant risk of expensive legal claims and litigation.

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 5: Consent Requirements

By Mike Hintze

When it comes into effect, the Washington My Health My Data Act will impose strict consent requirements on a wide range of common data collection and processing activities. In essence, the Act requires affirmative (opt-in) consent for any collection, use, disclosure, or other processing of consumer health data beyond what is necessary to provide a consumer-requested product or service. For anything that could be considered a data “sale,” the authorization requirements are so onerous and risky that they, in effect, create a prohibition.

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 4: Effective Dates

By Mike Hintze

Yesterday the amended Senate version of the Washington My Health My Data Act was approved by the Washington State Legislature. Now that it is a near certainty the Act will become law in its current form, entities subject to the Act need to start preparing to comply. The key factor in determining deadlines for having compliance measures in place is the effective date of the Act. The Act purports to come into effect on March 31, 2024 (and for small businesses, three months later on June 30, 2024). However, contrary to stated legislative intent, and due to what one can only conclude is, at least in part, a drafting error, some of the key substantive provisions of the Act may come into effect much sooner than expected - as soon as July 2023. 

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 3: The Scope of Entities and Consumers Captured by the Act

By Mike Hintze

The Washington My Health My Data Act applies to “regulated entities” that collect or process “consumer health information” from “consumers.” Part two of this series addressed the definition of “consumer health data” and how that definition results in a scope of applicability that is far beyond what we might typically think of as sensitive health data. But the other two above-quoted defined terms – “regulated entity” and “consumer” also result in a very broad (and in some ways surprising) scope and impact. 

Read More

Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 2: The Scope of “Consumer Health Data”

By Mike Hintze

The substantive requirements of the Washington My Health My Data Act apply to collection, use, and disclosure of “consumer health data.” While there are a few important exclusions, the stunning breath of that term's definition, means that it will be difficult to safely conclude that any category of personal data is out of scope of the Act. As a result, it is inaccurate to refer to the Washington My Health My Data Act as a “health data privacy law.” On the contrary, it is, in effect, a generally-applicable privacy law. 

Read More

The Washington My Health My Data Act - Part 1: An Overview

By Mike Hintze

The Washington My Health My Data Act will become the most consequential privacy legislation enacted in 2023. The sweeping scope and extreme substantive obligations, combined with vague terms and with a full private right of action, make this Act extraordinarily challenging and risky for entities seeking to comply with its requirements.

Read More

Utah's Social Media Regulation Act - Overview of Privacy & Business Impact

By Alex Schlight and Leslie Veloz

Just a year after passing a comprehensive privacy law, Utah becomes the first state in the United States to pass a law that significantly regulates minors' access to, and use of, social media sites. The law is much broader than kids’ privacy laws like the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), or California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act passed last year in that it significantly limits when and how minors under the age of 18 can use social media, gives parent’s broad rights to consent to and access accounts, and places extensive restrictions on social media company activities, including, prohibiting the display of ads to minors, targeting or suggesting groups, services, products, and posts and use of addictive design.

Read More

Hintze Cybersecurity + Breach Response Group Publishes U.S. State Breach Notice Guide

By Sam Castic

The Hintze Cybersecurity + Breach Response Group has published a new guide to U.S. state and territory data breach notification laws – the Hintze Data Breach Notice Guide accessible here.  We include in our guide an overview section with a high-level summary of the common provisions that U.S. breach notice laws contain.  We also provide a set of detailed charts covering each of the 54 states and jurisdictions. We gathered our collective decades of experience working with breaches to organize these charts in a way we think is more usable in the midst of a breach crisis.

Read More

What California’s New Age-Appropriate Design Code Means for Your Business

By Charlotte Lunday

On September 15, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADC). The law which received bipartisan support in the Legislature has a goal of protecting the wellbeing, data, and privacy of children, including teens, using online platforms. Businesses will be required to comply with significant new documentation and privacy by design and privacy default obligations by July 1, 2024. These obligations are largely adopted from the United Kingdom’s Age-Appropriate Design Code, and the statute’s preamble points to this law and the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance to interpret the CAADC.

Read More

First CCPA Fine Shows Need for Cookie Governance and Vendor Management

By Sam Castic

Last week the California Attorney General’s office announced a settlement with beauty retailer Sephora for $1.2 million - the AG’s first monetary penalty for CCPA violations. Sephora has also agreed to a 2-year consent decree with ongoing monitoring and reporting obligations. This enforcement action confirms the AG’s interpretation that: (1) the CCPA requires specific CCPA-mandated contractual terms with each cookie, pixel, and tracking technology provider that companies use on their websites for personal information sharing not to be a “sale” of data under the CCPA, and (2) companies that engage in “sales” of personal information on their websites must honor the Global Privacy Control signal from consumers who choose to use the GPC.

Read More

What to Expect: The California Privacy Protection Agency Releases Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action

By Laura Lemire

On Friday, July 8, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt regulations implementing the Consumer Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), the law that amends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (the “Proposed Regulations”). The Proposed Regulations were previously made available on May 27, 2022, and those remain unchanged. What’s new in the materials released with the notice of proposed rulemaking is rich context on the CPPA’s positions, particularly from the Economic Impact Statement and its supporting Notes.  

Read More

NY Employee Privacy Law Updates

By Jennifer Ruehr

This week, two pieces of important employee privacy legislation were passed in New York.  The first is an amendment to New York’s civil rights law that adds new requirements for businesses that conduct employee monitoring activities in the state. And, the second only applies to businesses in New York City in relation to automated employment decision tools used for hiring and promotion purposes.

Read More