Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Health and Location Data Protection Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Health and Location Data Protection Act of 2026 stops data brokers from selling or transferring an individual's health and location data. It also makes it illegal for any person to provide this sensitive data to a data broker. The Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and private individuals are given the power to enforce these rules. Certain exceptions exist for HIPAA-compliant actions, newsworthy information, and cases where an individual gives valid authorization. Violators can face civil penalties of up to 15 percent of their parent company's annual revenue.
Yes· 3 of 34
- Scored +10
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
Directly bans the sale and transfer of highly sensitive health and location data.
- Scored +10
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
Strongly enhances individual privacy by outlawing the commercial trade of sensitive health and location data.
- Scored +9
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Significantly protects consumers from the unauthorized sale of their sensitive health and location data.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -8
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
Actively works against the commercial surveillance complex by prohibiting the sale of location and health data.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Data brokers face severe financial penalties and business model disruption.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Appropriates $1 billion in additional funding to the FTC.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Sensitive Information: The bill prohibits data brokers from selling, licensing, or sharing an individual's location and health data, which prevents this private information from being traded (Section 2(a)).
-
Prevention of Data Collection: It is unlawful for any person to provide health or location data to a data broker, cutting off the supply of sensitive information to these entities (Section 2(b)).
-
Individual Legal Recourse: People whose interests are threatened or affected by violations can bring their own civil actions to stop violations, delete information, and obtain damages or attorney's fees (Section 3(c)).
-
Government Accountability: The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general are empowered to sue for injunctions, civil penalties, and compensation on behalf of aggrieved persons (Section 3(a) and 3(b)).
-
Strict Penalties for Companies: The act allows for civil penalties up to 15 percent of the ultimate parent entity's revenues, which serves as a strong deterrent against the sale of private data (Section 3(d)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Scope of Protections: The bill does not prohibit the sale of data by entities that do not meet the specific definition of a "data broker," such as those providing a product or service where sensitive data is not the primary product (Section 4(5)(B)).
-
Potential for Data Loss: While the bill allows for the "deletion of relevant information" during enforcement, it does not provide a mechanism for individuals to proactively manage or delete their data outside of a legal action (Section 3(a)(2)(ii) and 3(c)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects location data which is often used to track and identify undocumented individuals. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Prohibits the sale of data specifically identifying disabilities and health conditions. Would women be better off under this? — Strongly protects data related to pregnancy and reproductive health. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of sensitive data being used for discriminatory profiling. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of sensitive data being used for discriminatory profiling. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Provides enhanced privacy against location tracking and data harvesting. Would children be better off under this? — Protects children's location and health data from being sold by data brokers. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides stronger privacy protections and legal recourse for data violations. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides enhanced privacy against location tracking and data harvesting. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of sensitive data being used for discriminatory profiling. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Protects sensitive health data that could be used to out individuals. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prevents the sale of sensitive data which is often used for predatory targeting. Would men be better off under this? — Increases overall digital privacy and security. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections for sensitive personal information. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides stronger privacy protections and legal recourse for data violations. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of sensitive data being used for discriminatory profiling. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects sensitive health information from being traded. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections against location tracking. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects health data of elderly individuals from commercial exploitation. Would students be better off under this? — Increases privacy for young users of mobile devices and health apps. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Provides enhanced privacy against location tracking and data harvesting. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections against location tracking. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Protects sensitive health data from commercial sale. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases overall digital privacy and security. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections for a digitally native generation. Would business owners be better off under this? — Data brokers face severe financial penalties and business model disruption.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Directly bans the sale and transfer of highly sensitive health and location data. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Imposes strict prohibitions and high financial penalties on data brokers and those providing data to them.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Strongly enhances individual privacy by outlawing the commercial trade of sensitive health and location data. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands the FTC's regulatory authority and creates a federal standard for data broker prohibitions. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Explicitly empowers state attorneys general to enforce the act on behalf of their residents.
- Healthcare
- Does this make abortion easier to get? — Protects sensitive health data including pregnancy and miscarriage from being sold by brokers, which can shield individuals from surveillance.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Prohibits the sale of data revealing disabilities or health conditions.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — Reduces the availability of sensitive location and health data that could be exploited by malicious actors. Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Actively works against the commercial surveillance complex by prohibiting the sale of location and health data.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Significantly protects consumers from the unauthorized sale of their sensitive health and location data. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases federal expenditures via a new $1 billion appropriation. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases government spending by $1 billion for Commission operations. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Appropriates $1 billion in additional funding to the FTC.
- 7/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/13/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island