Op-ed: Support the Location Shield Act to keep cell companies from exploiting our data

The Massachusetts Location Shield Act (H. 86, S.197) under consideration by the Massachusetts legislature would prevent cell phone companies from exploiting information about users’ locations. The issue is about much more than an overload of annoying advertisements. It is about whether we the users decide who gets data about our private lives, or whether that decision lies with someone else.

The Act aims to prevent companies from exploiting location data for marketing while preserving legitimate uses like emergency services and navigation. This is critically important legislation, and should be passed immediately.

The Act is designed to prevent individuals and organizations that collect and buy location information from using it for any purposes not approved by users. There is also a carve-out for law enforcement which provides an additional tool to police to help keep us safe.

Companies are already using the internet to bombard us with endless ads whenever we stumble onto a website, glance at an article or buy something on Amazon. Access to user location data allows commercial enterprises to track where we shop (they would know when we are in the Market Basket or Stop & Shop parking lots), which doctors we consult, and what our daily schedules are. Without the Act they would be free to market to us through an endless barrage of texts, and could link the data to other outlets, such as the internet. While targeted ads already affect us, location data has the potential to reach the next level of intrusion.

But the potential uses are even more sinister than that. Because location information tracks our every movement, it has the potential to disclose when we are away from home, who we are meeting with, when we are most vulnerable. In its most nightmarish form, this data could be used by thieves, stalkers or other bad actors for criminal purposes. This is not just theoretical. Research by the American Civil Liberties Union shows this is already happening.

This Act would prevent bad actors from getting the information in the first place by prohibiting the companies that collect it from selling to anyone that we the users have not approved.

At the same time, the Act would not affect the use of cell data for legitimate purposes. First, users can provide permission to cell carriers to collect and sell their data. Second, there is a specific exemption for data collection in a law enforcement context. This exemption is narrowly drawn so that police cannot profile certain neighborhoods or populations. Instead, they must use the data only as part of complying with state or federal law, or as part of responding to an active emergency.

A violation of this rule could result in a fine of three times the actual damages. While it would not impose any criminal penalties, the fines would be enough to deter companies from selling information. A complaint can be filed either by individuals harmed by a violation of the Act, or by the attorney general’s office. As a result, law enforcement can pursue not only criminal charges against stalkers or thieves, but also civil penalties against defendants who used cell data to commit their crimes. This has the potential to become a valuable tool for law enforcement to protect the public.

The Act has bi-partisan support. It originally passed the House in 2024 unanimously. Four Republicans and one Independent have signed on to the Act, along with 33 Democrats, 38 of the 40 Mass. senators and 106 of the 160 state representatives have signed on as supporters.

The Act is supported by the ACLU, a liberal organization. However, this is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of control. The question is whether we the people want control to rest with ourselves and the law enforcement organizations that protect us, or with commercial enterprises that have no concern for the motivations of anyone who might buy our location information.

These provisions are not yet law in Massachusetts. If passed, Massachusetts would be the first state in the nation to have such a law. That said, Pennsylvania is considering similar legislation, following the Bay State’s lead.

As laudable as the Act is, there is still work to be done to make it law. The legislature still needs to pass it, and the governor needs to sign it.

I therefore urge readers to contact the governor, and their Massachusetts representatives and senators to show their support for this legislation and demand immediate passage of the Location Shield Act.

Dave Flanagan is a resident of Westford. He is an in-house attorney for a medical device company and an adjunct lecturer at the Boston University School of Law.