×
DMA: Data and Marketing Association
Consumer Help

Advocacy Accomplishments

State

California
  • January 2014: DMA submitted comments to the California Attorney General’s Office of Privacy Education and Policy on its draft document proposing “best practices” for transparency in the practice of online tracking. DMA’s comments highlight the proposal’s divergence from the new law, underscore the need for clarity in this area and suggest referring to the document as “recommendations” rather than “best practices” to distinguish between what is and what is not required under the law.
  • November 2013: DMA, along with IAB, held a successful webinar regarding compliance with California’s new law on minors, SB 568.
  • October 2013: Former California Senator Steve Peace decided to abandon his ballot initiative in California, which would have amended the state constitution in order to make any personally identifying information about an individual confidential and require any sharing of that information to be on an opt-in basis. DMA participated in a coalition headed by the California Chamber of Commerce, urging the California Attorney General’s Office to carefully examine the cost of the initiative. The financial impact found by the state of California is believed to be the reason why Peace withdrew the initiative.
  • October 2013: DMA, along with IAB, held a successful webinar regarding compliance with California’s Do Not Track disclosure bill, AB 370.
  • June 2013: California bill AB 844, which limits the personal information that can be collected from customers during credit or debit card transactions has passed the Assembly, but was amended to a more acceptable form including an exemption. The somewhat Senate companion bill, SB 383, was put over as a two-year bill, meaning it will no longer be considered.
  • May 2013: California bill AB 1291, which would have substantially amended California’s Shine the Light law, was put over to the next session and was not considered further in 2013. The bill could have resulted in a mountain of data having to be stored, archived, and be made searchable and then disclosable.
  • March 2013: DMA’s Vice President of State Affairs Ron Barnes was invited by the California Assembly Committee on the Judiciary to testify on the issue of online behavioral tracking and the work that the Digital Advertising Alliance has done to provide consumers with choice over behavioral advertising.
  • January 2013: In response to California Attorney General Harris’ report entitled, “Privacy on the Go – Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem”, DMA joined a letter with six other trade associations explaining to General Harris that the report did not represent broad industry consensus.
Colorado
  • December 2013: The Colorado Department of Revenue decided not to enforce any penalties for failure to comply with either the January 31 annual purchase summaries to customers or the March 1 customer transaction report to the Department of Revenue, essentially making the Colorado law moot for at least 2014 while DMA continues to fight the law.
  • August 2012: DMA filed its reply brief to the State of Colorado in Colorado’s appeal of DMA’s injunction victory, reiterating that the Federal District Court’s Injunction was correctly decided.
Illinois
  • May 2012: Cook County Circuit Court Judge Robert Lopez Cepero issued a written opinion supporting his recent bench ruling that the Illinois affiliate nexus tax law is in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the activity described in the statute does not establish nexus.
Kentucky
  • March 2013: DMA sent a letter to the governor of Kentucky asking him to veto HB 440, which would require any seller that does not collect Kentucky sales tax to notify consumers that they may owe taxes to the state on purchases made where no sales tax was collected and provide that notification on the retailer’s website, catalog, and invoices. The letter also explained the ongoing lawsuit that DMA has against the Colorado Department of Revenue over its similar law.
Maine
  • July 2013: Governor Paul LePage vetoed Maine’s online automatic renewal cancellation policy bill, LD 1390. The veto was good news for members who have subscription services for online magazines, journals, and periodicals; online media players; social networking services; or Internet game services.
  • May 2013: The Maine House Judiciary Committee took up, but did not advance, LD 313, a bill that would have required a privacy policy to be posted on websites and would have made certain requirements of what the policy must include. The Committee issued a divided report, meaning that the bill was unlikely to receive any further consideration.
Maryland
  • June 2013: DMA became a member of the Maryland Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) study group on children’s online privacy issues, created by Maryland Senate bill SB 374.
  • April 2013: Maryland bills SB 709 and HB 1212 that would have placed restrictions on negative option marketing failed at the end of the session. At the suggestion of DMA, the Senate bill was amended to allow for the audio recording of customer consent in telephone sales, bringing the bill into line with the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule.
  • May 2012: In Maryland, a tax exemption removal considered in the House that would have been detrimental to DMA members in the state was not part of the final budget package the General Assembly adopted.
Missouri
  • June 2013: Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed HB 253, a bill that would have entered Missouri into the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, would have imposed an affiliate nexus tax, and would have created controlled group provisions in Missouri law for companies that have subsidiaries in the state.
New Hampshire
  • June 2012: New Hampshire passed HB 1260, a bill that makes changes to gambling law in the state and would have affected the offering of sweepstakes in the state in its original form. However, DMA worked to make changes to the definitions of “gambling”, “gambling machine” and “sweepstakes” to ensure that legitimate marketing sweepstakes were not covered by the final version of the bill.
New York
  • November 2013: DMA’s Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Jerry Cerasale testified in a privacy hearing held by the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection.
  • February 2013: DMA offered amendment language to the sponsor of New York Senate bill S 3374, which would prevent the transmission of any ads to a cell phone or pager unless the sender is either the service provider or by a business or affiliate of that business who has an existing business relationship with the recipient. The amendment asked to bring the bill into line with federal law by allowing for a consumer to give permission to a company to send ads.
  • November 2012: DMA briefed the New York Attorney General’s Internet Bureau on the work that is being done by direct marketers and advertisers to provide consumer choice for managing online behavioral advertising, specifically the Digital Advertising Alliance’s advertising option icon.
Pennsylvania
  • June 2012: HB 1776, the bill was part of a broader effort in PA to shift the tax burden from property taxes to sales tax and would extend the sales tax to broad categories of goods and services that have been exempt from taxation before, was tabled by the Finance Committee. DMA had submitted an opposition letter prior to the last committee hearing.
Other
  • July 2012: DMA hosted its annual state legislative update webinar to review the marketing-related policy issues state legislatures considered this past session, including privacy, taxes, free trial offers/sweepstakes and the 2012 elections.
  • May 2012: DMA had an opportunity to National Association of Attorneys General (NAG) Consumer Protection Conference participants on the Digital Advertising Alliance’s Advertising Option icon and online behavioral advertising principles.
  • May 2012: DMA initiated a new regularly scheduled state legislative issues conference call, providing a forum for information sharing and coordination among the association regarding priority legislation.

Interested in Key Issues?

Advocacy Accomplishments
View More
Our Brands EducationEventsAdvocacy MembershipAccountability ResourcesKnowledge CenterAbout UsBlogContact Us

Login To Your Account