Why Responsible Location Data Matters for California’s Future

Prompted by the smog plaguing Los Angeles in the late 1960s, the state of California resolved to fight back. With broad, bipartisan support, it enacted the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. CEQA conditions the granting of government permits (construction permits, land-use permits, etc.) on a finding that the project seeking approval won’t unduly damage the environment. 

Nominally, CEQA furthers a human right enshrined in the state constitution: the right to live free from environmental harm. Yet, as with many well-intentioned laws, its implementation has brought some unintended consequences. In particular, CEQA’s proponents may not have fully anticipated how the law would interact with another, pre-existing law familiar to all of humanity: the law of unintended consequences. 

Over the years,the regulatory challenges created by CEQA has grown to the point where it now leads the nation in impeding the construction of (among other things) utility-scale solar farms, and the electric grid upgrades they would require. For a law intended to fight pollution, the irony can’t be missed. 

A new California proposal, AB 1542 nominally seeking to further a different right enshrined in the state Constitution – the right to personal privacy – shortsightedly threatens a rerun of CEQA’s dynamic. 

This pending bill approved by the state Senate committee proposes to ban the sale of precise geolocation data, irrespective of consumer consent as sensitive data even if consumers have consented to the use of their data. No allegation of harm is required. The narrower of the two is AB 322, which would prohibit businesses from selling precise geolocation data. AB 322 has been placed in the suspend file for now.  The second is AB 1542, which would extend the prohibition to all “sensitive data,” including precise geolocation data will go to a full senate vote by August 31, 2026. 

Less drastic alternatives exist. Some states allow the sale of precise geolocation data provided consumers are given the chance to opt-out. That’s the current rule in California, which the state pioneered. Others permit it provided consumers consent to the practice by opting-in, including Vermont, Delaware, Colorado and Texas. 

In all cases, the sale of “sensitive” location data has been deemed an unfair trade practice by the Federal Trade Commission. Accordingly, family planning clinics, places of worship, immigrant services centers, etc., are off limits.  The FTC approach, also broadly adopted by the National Advertising Initiative, strikes the proper balance by avoiding the improper targeting of vulnerable populations, while enabling initiatives that promote the greater good.

While framed as an urgent priority, the proposed ban California proposes may not fully account for the benefits of the responsible use of consented data, and would impede or terminate progress in areas its residents care about deeply. Furthermore, it would eliminate a vital source of data essential for smart, modern planning and the efficient delivery of services, including essential services.

For example, the ban would impede the following:

• Emergency Management and Disaster Response: State and local agencies utilize roadway-level location streams to plan and implement disaster response logistics (evacuation corridors, access by first responders, etc.). Considering current and recent fire events in California, stripping emergency managers of access to crucial location data would be self-defeating, to say the least.
• Retail: The use of precise geolocation data enables retailers to target ads to likely consumers, to the benefit of businesses and consumers alike. Similarly, it promotes the efficient use of resources by enabling retailers to site future stores successfully. 
• Urban Planning and Carbon Reduction: Without detailed, high-quality data, Californians cannot efficiently plan or deploy the large-scale infrastructure required to meet pressing needs, such as the housing shortage, climate change, and similar challenges. 
• Land Use and Dynamic Climate Modeling: Policymakers can no longer rely purely on historical maps to assess wildfire and flood hazards. Restricting precise geolocation data deprives planners of the ability to incorporate projected future risks into safe residential zoning.
• Smart City Traffic and Crowd Control: Modern municipalities use vehicular crowdsourcing and location analytics to actively optimize traffic signals, dynamically clearing gridlock and preventing dangerous bottlenecks during large events. Forcing cities back to outdated, fixed-timer traffic lights will increase emissions, lengthen daily commutes, and compromise public safety.
• Fraud Prevention and Cybersecurity: Given increasing data security risks and the need to prevent fraud, financial institutions rely on consumer location data to verify credit card transactions. Other, similar fraud-detection uses of location data exist.
• Logistics, Supply Chain.  Fleet dispatchers track transport vehicles to adjust routes around construction, accidents, or weather, thereby lowering fuel use,  and aiding in locating stolen cargo, vehicles, etc.

Addressing 21st-century challenges requires access to responsibly collected and used data. California should consider how precise geolocation data can continue to support important public benefits while protecting consumer privacy.  Responsible data suppliers, like Azira, only use consented data and filter out sensitive locations thus striking the proper balance espoused in this note - facilitating the use of data for the greater good, while preventing its misuse to improperly target vulnerable populations.

Learn more about Azira’s Privacy Policy or contact us today.