Only mildly concerning thing seems to be the pay-for-privacy bullet at the end of the article. This can definitely be fixed.
Further, reference to Sorrell vs IMS seems very contrived to me (not a lawyer though), as it deals with B2B records (DR prescribing history) as opposed to purely consumer rights or privacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc.
Outcome was that the law was struck down as restricting data mining company’s first amendment rights.
Comments
Only mildly concerning thing seems to be the pay-for-privacy bullet at the end of the article. This can definitely be fixed.
Further, reference to Sorrell vs IMS seems very contrived to me (not a lawyer though), as it deals with B2B records (DR prescribing history) as opposed to purely consumer rights or privacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc.
Outcome was that the law was struck down as restricting data mining company’s first amendment rights.