Bill
HF 20
Clarifies how Minnesota Attorney General data is classified (public/private/confidential), guiding access, exemptions, and disclosures under state data practices.
HF 20 (Session 2025-2026) — Data classification of certain data maintained by the attorney general clarified
Overview
- Purpose: To clarify how certain data maintained by the Minnesota Attorney General (AG) should be classified under state data practices laws. The bill focuses on defining and harmonizing the data classifications the AG handles, aiming to provide clearer rules for access, exemptions, and public disclosure.
Key Provisions and Changes (substantive content)
- Data classification clarity: The bill specifies how particular categories of data held by the Attorney General are to be classified (e.g., public, private, confidential, or nonpublic). It intent is to remove ambiguity in when AG-held data must be released or protected.
- Applicability to AG records: Applies to data created, received, or maintained by the Office of the Attorney General in the course of its statutory duties, including consumer protection, civil litigation, criminal justice matters, and advisory opinions where relevant.
- Public disclosure criteria: Establishes criteria or conditions under which AG data may be disclosed to the public or to third parties, potentially aligning with exemptions from disclosure or adding new exemptions for specific types of information.
- Privacy and confidentiality protections: Reinforces or creates protections for sensitive information (e.g., personal data, confidential legal strategies, investigative details) to prevent unnecessary or unlawful disclosure.
- Interaction with Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MDPDA): Clarifies how the AG’s data classifications interact with existing state law governing data practices, including any standard procedures for requests, redactions, or exemptions applicable to AG data.
Who/What would be affected
- Primary: Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the data it maintains.
- Secondary: Individuals, businesses, and governmental entities requesting access to AG data, as well as other state agencies that interface with AG records or rely on public data.
- Potential broader impact: Clarified data classifications could influence how AG communications, opinions, consumer protection notices, civil case documents, and regulatory actions are disclosed or kept private.
Procedural and Timeline Aspects
- Committee and floor actions: The bill moved through Judiciary Finance and Civil Law committee and progressed through readings and amendments, with multiple motions and calendar actions in February and April 2025.
- Notable actions:
- Introduction and first reading: February 6, 2025.
- Committee report and second reading: February 17, 2025.
- Multiple floor motions and calendar placements occurred February 19–20, 2025 (including passes, reconsiderations, or re-refer actions, and a motion to lay on the table; some motions did not prevail).
- On April 10, 2025, a "motion to take from table" occurred but did not prevail, indicating ongoing consideration or potential further amendments.
- Status: As of the latest action in April 2025, the bill had progressed through several readings and committee actions but did not complete final passage in that session window. The introduced and co-sponsored list indicates broad bipartisan support from many representatives.
Support and Sponsorship
- Primary sponsor: (Not specified here; HF numbers typically indicate a representative sponsor) The bill has a broad roster of co-sponsors, suggesting cross-aisle interest in clarifying AG data classifications.
- Notable co-sponsors: Peggy Bennett, Natalie Zeleznikar, Bernie Perryman, Harry Niska, Steve Jacob, Joe McDonald, Peggy Scott, Bidal Duran, Jon Koznick, Keith Allen, Jimmy Gordon, Max Rymer, John Burkel, Kristin Robbins, Krista Knudsen, Elliott Engen, Dawn Gillman, Jeff Dotseth, Bobbie Harder, among others.
Notes for readers
- This summary describes the bill’s intent to clarify data classification for the Attorney General’s data and outlines the procedural path it followed in 2025. For stakeholders, the exact statutory language would specify the precise data categories and exemptions, as well as any transitional provisions or definitions (e.g., what constitutes “data maintained,” or how to handle overlapping data practices with other agencies).
If you’d like, I can pull the bill’s specific statutory language or outline hypothetical scenarios (e.g., disclosure of consumer protection enforcement materials) to illustrate potential impacts.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
