Why America Needs a Federal Digital Bill of Rights—Now
Every day, Americans generate vast amounts of personal data. We browse websites, make purchases, check our bank accounts, search for health information, share photos, track our fitness, and navigate using GPS. Each of these actions leaves a digital trail—and in most cases, we have no idea what happens to that information once we hit “accept” or “continue.”
The uncomfortable truth is that the United States, despite being a technological superpower, has no comprehensive federal framework protecting citizens’ digital privacy. While data brokers operate largely unchecked, buying and selling intimate details about our lives, most Americans remain in the dark about what data is being collected, who has it, and what they’re doing with it. We’ve built a digital economy on a foundation of extraction and exploitation, and the cracks are showing.
It’s time for a Federal Digital Bill of Rights.
The Patchwork Problem
In the absence of federal action, states have taken matters into their own hands. As of 2025, more than 20 states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws. California led the charge with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2018, followed by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) in 2020, and most recently, the groundbreaking Delete Act, which launches its one-click deletion platform in January 2026.
Other states—Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Texas, Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Montana, Minnesota, Maryland, Oregon, and others—have followed suit with their own variations. Eight new state privacy laws went into effect in 2025 alone.
This should be celebrated as progress, right? In some ways, yes. State leadership has pushed privacy protections forward when Congress has failed to act. California’s innovations, particularly around data broker regulation, demonstrate what’s possible when lawmakers prioritize citizens over corporate interests.
But here’s the problem: this patchwork approach is unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. Each state defines personal data differently. Some require opt-in consent for sensitive data; others rely on opt-out mechanisms. Response timelines vary. Enforcement differs wildly. Some states allow cure periods before penalties kick in; others don’t.
For businesses operating nationally, compliance has become a nightmare of conflicting requirements. For consumers, the situation is even worse. Your rights depend entirely on which state you live in. A Californian can request deletion through a centralized platform starting in 2026. A Texan faces a fragmented landscape. Someone in Wyoming? They have virtually no protections at all.
This geographic lottery makes no sense in a digital economy where data flows freely across state lines. We don’t accept state-by-state variations in civil rights or free speech protections. Why should digital privacy be any different?
The Forced Data Sharing Problem: Take It or Leave It
Before we even get to the question of what happens to our data after it’s collected, we need to confront a more fundamental issue: companies are collecting far more data than they need in the first place, and we’re given no real choice in the matter.
The pattern is familiar to anyone who’s used a modern app or service. You want to do something simple—split a dinner bill, book a ride, check the weather—and suddenly you’re confronted with a request for access to your contacts, your location history, your photos, your microphone. When you hesitate, the app makes it clear: give us everything we’re asking for, or you can’t use the service. Take it or leave it.
This isn’t how transactions are supposed to work. Imagine walking into a coffee shop and being told that to buy a latte, you must provide your social security number, a list of everyone you’ve called in the past month, and your complete medical history. You’d walk out. But in the digital realm, we’ve normalized this absurd asymmetry.
Consider Plaid, the financial technology company that powers connections between banking apps and services like Venmo, Robinhood, and countless others. To link your bank accounts—a service that should require only verification that you own those accounts—Plaid has traditionally asked users to hand over their actual banking credentials: username and password. Not only does this violate basic security principles (never share your password with third parties), but Plaid then gains access to your complete transaction history, account balances, and more.
Why? The core service could be provided with far less information. But data is valuable, and in the absence of legal requirements for data minimization, companies take what they can get. Users, desperate to access services they need, click “agree” because the alternative is exclusion from an increasingly digital economy.
This pattern repeats across the digital landscape. Apps request location data when they’re not navigation tools. Retailers demand email addresses and phone numbers for in-store purchases. Websites present “cookie walls”—accept tracking by hundreds of third-party advertisers, or leave. These aren’t real choices; they’re coercion dressed up as consent.
The problem compounds when you realize that the company you’re directly interacting with is only the beginning. Buried in those 50-page Terms of Service that no one reads (and which companies know no one reads) are provisions allowing them to share your data with “partners,” “affiliates,” and “service providers.” One transaction with one company can mean your data is shared with dozens or hundreds of third parties, each with their own data practices, security standards, and potential vulnerabilities.
You wanted to buy shoes. Now a data broker in another state has your browsing history, and a marketing analytics firm has built a psychological profile about you, and an ad tech company is tracking you across the internet. You never consented to any of this—at least not in any meaningful sense of the word “consent.”
The Danger of Doing Nothing: Why Inaction is a Threat
The current free-for-all around data collection and sharing isn’t just annoying or invasive. It’s dangerous. Every day we fail to establish comprehensive federal protections, the risks grow more severe and the consequences more dire.
National Security Risks
Here’s a disturbing reality: foreign adversaries don’t need to hack American systems to gain access to sensitive data about U.S. citizens. They can simply buy it. Data brokers sell detailed information about Americans—including government employees, military personnel, and intelligence officers—to anyone willing to pay. Location data showing patterns of life, relationship networks, financial information, health data—it’s all for sale on the open market.
In 2024, the FTC took action against X-Mode Social (later Outlogic) for selling location data that revealed visits to sensitive locations including reproductive health clinics, domestic abuse shelters, and places of worship. But enforcement actions against individual bad actors don’t fix a broken system. As long as the data broker industry operates with minimal oversight, our national security remains compromised not through sophisticated cyberattacks, but through simple commercial transactions.
Discrimination at Scale
Data enables discrimination with unprecedented precision and scale. Landlords can use data to screen out applicants based on proxies for protected characteristics. Employers can identify and reject candidates based on data profiles. Insurance companies can deny coverage or charge higher rates based on data inferences rather than actual risk.
The targeting works both ways. Predatory lenders use data to identify vulnerable individuals struggling financially and target them with high-interest loans. Scammers purchase data to identify elderly individuals for fraud schemes. The same data that allows a legitimate company to “personalize your experience” allows bad actors to exploit your vulnerabilities.
Physical Safety Threats
Perhaps most chilling: data brokers sell location information that can be used for stalking and harassment. Domestic abusers can purchase data to track their victims’ movements. Harassers can identify home addresses and daily patterns. In an era where “doxxing” has become a tool of intimidation, the easy availability of personal information puts people at physical risk.
The FTC has brought enforcement actions for particularly egregious cases, but the fundamental problem remains: it’s legal to collect and sell detailed location data about people’s movements, even when those movements reveal sensitive information like visits to medical facilities, religious institutions, or domestic violence shelters.
Financial Exploitation
The data broker industry has created new vectors for financial harm. Your data profile can affect your access to credit, the prices you’re offered for goods and services, and your ability to participate in the economy on fair terms. Dynamic pricing—charging different customers different prices based on what the algorithm thinks you’ll pay—turns every transaction into a negotiation where only one party has information.
Worse, data breaches at brokers or third parties expose your information to criminals. The 2024 National Public Data breach potentially exposed billions of records. When your data is scattered across hundreds of companies you’ve never heard of, you can’t even know when you’ve been compromised or take steps to protect yourself.
Democratic Erosion
Surveillance capitalism undermines democracy. When detailed psychological profiles enable micro-targeted political manipulation, when filter bubbles are algorithmically optimized, when disinformation can be precisely calibrated to exploit individual vulnerabilities, the informed citizenry necessary for democratic governance becomes impossible.
We’ve seen how data-driven political manipulation works. It’s not theoretical. The ability to target individuals with different messages, to test and refine persuasion techniques, to exploit psychological vulnerabilities at scale—this represents a fundamental threat to democratic decision-making.
Health Privacy Violations
Health data is supposed to be protected under HIPAA, but that law only covers healthcare providers and insurers. The fitness app tracking your runs, the period tracker monitoring your cycle, the mental health chatbot you confide in, the pharmacy app you use—none of these are covered by HIPAA. They can, and do, collect and sell your health information.
Post-Dobbs, the risks are even more stark. Location data revealing visits to reproductive health clinics can be purchased and used for prosecution in states with abortion bans. Mental health data, substance abuse treatment information, genetic data—all of this flows through an ecosystem with minimal protection.
The Compounding Effect
Each of these dangers is serious on its own. But here’s what makes the current situation truly dire: they compound. When companies share your data with third parties, they multiply the risk. One company’s lax security becomes everyone’s breach. One unethical data broker’s willingness to sell to anyone puts everyone at risk.
Every new third party that receives your data is another potential point of failure, another entity that might be hacked, might sell to malicious actors, might be compelled to turn over data to foreign governments, might simply go bankrupt and auction off their data assets.
The Ratchet Effect
Finally, there’s a temporal dimension to the danger. Every day without comprehensive protection, more data is collected. And once collected, it’s nearly impossible to fully recall. Data copied and shared with third parties can’t be un-shared. Inferences drawn and profiles built persist. The window for preventing harm closes a little more each day.
This is why urgency matters. This isn’t a problem we can solve later. Every delay means more data in more hands, more opportunities for misuse, more people harmed.
What the EU Got Right: GDPR as a Model
When the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect in 2018, American tech companies complained loudly about the compliance burden. Some predicted it would stifle innovation and put European companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Seven years later, none of those dire predictions have come to pass. European tech companies are thriving. Innovation continues. What has changed is that European citizens have meaningful rights over their personal data—rights that have become the global standard, even as the United States lags behind.
The GDPR isn’t perfect, but it established several fundamental principles that should be universal:
Data Minimization: Companies can only collect personal data that is necessary for the specific purpose they’re pursuing. You can’t demand my phone number to sell me shoes, my location history to show me news, or my contacts list to let me play a game. This principle alone would eliminate much of the forced data sharing that has become normalized in the U.S. market.
Right to Know: Organizations must be transparent about what data they collect, why they’re collecting it, and what they do with it. Not buried in impenetrable legal language, but in clear, accessible terms.
Right to Access: Individuals can request a copy of all their personal data. Not summaries, not excerpts, but everything. And companies must provide it in a format that’s actually usable, not as a way to discourage requests.
Right to Deletion: The “right to be forgotten” puts control back where it belongs—with the individual. If you want your data deleted, companies must comply, with limited exceptions for legitimate legal or operational necessities.
Limitations on Conditional Services: Crucially, GDPR limits what companies can demand as a condition of service. They can’t make you consent to unnecessary data collection just to access basic functionality.
These aren’t radical ideas. They’re common-sense protections that recognize a fundamental truth: your personal data belongs to you, not to whatever company managed to collect it.
The GDPR has its critics, and implementation hasn’t been perfect. Enforcement has been uneven, and some companies have found creative ways to maintain exploitative practices while technically complying. But the framework itself represents a dramatic improvement over the status quo in the United States, where corporations face virtually no limits on what they can collect, share, or sell.
The Data Broker Problem
At the heart of the current crisis is an industry that most Americans don’t even know exists: data brokers. These are companies that collect and sell personal information about people they’ve never directly interacted with. They don’t provide you with any service. They don’t have a relationship with you. They simply collect data about you—from public records, from commercial sources, from other brokers, from companies that sold or shared your data—and package it for sale.
The data brokerage industry is worth approximately $434 billion as of 2025. That’s nearly half a trillion dollars built on a foundation of data collected without meaningful consent and sold without the knowledge of the people it concerns.
What kind of data? Everything. Your name, address, phone number, email. Your age, income, education level, marital status. Your purchasing history, your browsing behavior, your social media activity. Your political affiliation, your religious beliefs, your health conditions. Where you go, when you go there, who you go with. What you search for. What you read. What you watch.
Data brokers don’t just collect this information—they analyze it, enhance it, package it, and sell it to anyone willing to pay. Marketers use it to target ads. Employers use it to screen candidates. Insurance companies use it to assess risk. Law enforcement purchases it to conduct surveillance. Scammers use it to identify marks. Stalkers use it to track victims.
The kicker? Until very recently, data brokers operated almost entirely in the shadows. No registration requirements, no disclosure obligations, no oversight. Most people whose data was being bought and sold had no idea it was happening.
Some states have begun to push back. Vermont enacted the first data broker registry in 2019. California’s Delete Act, which goes fully into effect in January 2026, requires data brokers to register and participate in a centralized deletion platform. Oregon and Texas have followed suit with their own registration requirements.
California’s approach is particularly promising. The Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP) will allow Californians to submit a single deletion request that automatically goes to every registered data broker in the state. Instead of having to identify and contact hundreds of brokers individually—a process so burdensome it effectively nullified deletion rights—residents will have a one-stop mechanism.
The California Privacy Protection Agency has already begun enforcing the law, levying fines against brokers who failed to register. In early 2025, Jerico Pictures Inc. (operating as National Public Data) was fined $46,000 for registering 230 days late. Other brokers—Accurate Append, Key Marketing Advantage, Growbots, UpLead, and ROR Partners—have paid fines ranging from approximately $34,000 to over $56,000.
But here’s the problem: California’s protections only apply to Californians. Data brokers can continue operating freely in states without similar laws. And even in states with protections, enforcement is spotty and resource-constrained.
The federal government has been almost entirely absent. The FTC has brought a handful of enforcement actions against particularly egregious actors—banning X-Mode Social from selling location data, fining Mobilewalla for failing to anonymize data, taking action against Avast for improperly selling user data. But these are reactive enforcement actions against individual bad actors, not a comprehensive regulatory framework.
The American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), which would establish federal data broker regulations among other protections, has been stalled since 2024. Political disagreements and intense industry lobbying have prevented progress, leaving Americans vulnerable while the brokerage industry continues to grow.
Three Core Principles for a Federal Digital Bill of Rights
A comprehensive Federal Digital Bill of Rights should establish clear, enforceable protections grounded in a few core principles. These aren’t theoretical ideals—they’re practical requirements that modern technology can easily accommodate.
Data Minimization
Companies should only be allowed to collect personal data that is necessary for the specific service requested. If you’re buying a product, the retailer doesn’t need your birthday, your browsing history, or your location data. If you’re using a weather app, it doesn’t need access to your contacts or your photos.
This principle would fundamentally reshape the current “take it or leave it” dynamic. Companies could no longer hold services hostage to demands for excessive data collection. They’d have to justify every piece of information requested and demonstrate its necessity for the service provided.
Data minimization would also apply to third-party sharing. Companies could share data with service providers necessary to deliver the requested service, but not with “partners” and “affiliates” for purposes unrelated to what the user asked for. No more automatic sharing with dozens of ad tech companies, analytics firms, and data brokers just because the user wanted to read an article or buy a product.
Discoverability
Every entity—companies, data brokers, third parties—that holds your personal data should be required to make it easy for you to discover this fact. Not theoretically possible to discover through exhaustive research, but actually easy.
This means centralized registries for data brokers, clear disclosure requirements for companies, and standardized mechanisms for individuals to query who has their data. California’s DROP platform points the way: a single place where you can see which brokers have your information and exercise your rights.
For third parties who received your data through sharing arrangements, there should be a clear chain of accountability. If you interact with Company A, and they share your data with Companies B, C, and D, you should be able to easily discover this and exercise rights with respect to all of them.
Accessibility
Once you’ve discovered who has your data, requesting access to it should be straightforward. No verification nightmares that require you to provide more personal information just to see what they already have. No responses that cherry-pick or summarize rather than providing complete data. No technical formats designed to be unusable.
Companies should be required to provide data in standard, machine-readable formats that allow individuals to actually understand and use what they receive. The goal isn’t to create busy work for privacy teams—it’s to give people meaningful access to information about themselves.
This principle also means no discrimination or retaliation against people who exercise their rights. Companies can’t degrade service, charge more, or exclude users who request their data or ask for deletion.
Deletion
Here’s where federal law needs to be significantly stronger than current state standards: mandatory deletion within seven calendar days.
Most state laws allow 45 days to respond to deletion requests. Some allow extensions if companies claim difficulty verifying identity or accessing data. This is far too long and gives companies far too much wiggle room.
Seven days is technically feasible with modern database technology. It’s long enough for legitimate verification and processing, but short enough to meaningfully protect consumers. Every day beyond seven is another day for data to be sold, shared, breached, or misused.
The seven-day requirement becomes even more critical when third-party sharing is involved. When Company A shares your data with Company B, and you request deletion, both should be required to delete within seven days. This prevents companies from playing hot potato with your data, passing it along to others just before deletion requests come through.
Third-Party Accountability
Finally, companies that share personal data with third parties should remain accountable for that data. If you share my information with partners, those partners must follow the same rules you do. If they experience a breach, you’re liable. If they sell data they shouldn’t, you’re responsible.
This principle would dramatically change corporate incentives around data sharing. Right now, sharing data with third parties allows companies to offload risk and responsibility. Meaningful third-party accountability would force companies to carefully vet their partners and limit sharing to genuinely necessary purposes.
Why 7 Days Matters
The choice of a seven-day deletion timeline isn’t arbitrary. It reflects a fundamental question: whose convenience should the law prioritize?
Current state laws that allow 45 days (or more, with extensions) are designed around corporate convenience. They give companies plenty of time to route requests through bureaucratic processes, verify identities through cumbersome procedures, and coordinate across systems that were deliberately built to make data collection easy and deletion hard.
But modern database technology makes rapid deletion technically straightforward. Companies can ingest and process your data in milliseconds for their purposes. They can track you across devices, link disparate data sources, and build detailed profiles in real-time. But when it comes to deletion, suddenly they need 45 days?
The discrepancy reveals the truth: long deletion windows are a choice, not a technical necessity. They’re designed to protect corporate interests, not consumer rights.
Seven days is long enough for legitimate needs. Identity verification doesn’t require weeks. Locating data within properly designed systems doesn’t take 45 days. If a company’s systems are so byzantine that they can’t process a deletion request in a week, that’s a problem with their systems, not a reason to extend the timeline.
Meanwhile, every day beyond seven represents real risk to consumers. It’s another day for your data to be sold to a data broker. Another day for it to be shared with third parties. Another day of potential exposure in a breach. Another day when your information could be used to harm you.
When third-party sharing is involved, the urgency multiplies. Company A might take 45 days to process your deletion request, but in the meantime, they’ve shared your data with Companies B through Z. Now you need to submit separate deletion requests to all of them, each taking their own 45 days. Meanwhile, those companies might be sharing with still more parties. The blast radius grows exponentially.
A seven-day requirement, applied uniformly to all entities holding your data, stops this cascade. It ensures that deletion actually means deletion, not an endless game of whack-a-mole as your data proliferates across the commercial data ecosystem.
This is what meaningful consumer protection looks like. Not theoretical rights that are practically impossible to exercise, but enforceable requirements that prioritize people over corporate convenience.
Addressing the Pushback
Any proposal for comprehensive privacy regulation faces predictable objections from industry. We’ve heard these arguments before, in other contexts—clean air regulations, workplace safety laws, consumer protection rules. The pattern is familiar: warnings of economic disaster, claims that innovation will be stifled, threats that American competitiveness will suffer.
Let’s address these concerns directly.
“We need all this data to serve you better”
Do they? Really? Or do they need it to monetize you better, to build more detailed profiles for advertisers, to sell to data brokers, to create new revenue streams that have nothing to do with the service you requested?
The data minimization principle doesn’t prevent companies from collecting information genuinely necessary for services. It prevents them from demanding irrelevant information as a condition of access. If a company can’t provide its service without harvesting excessive data, perhaps the business model is the problem.
“This will stifle innovation”
The GDPR provides a useful natural experiment. When it went into effect in 2018, critics predicted it would devastate European tech companies and hand dominance to American firms unconstrained by privacy rules. Seven years later, European innovation continues, new companies emerge, and the predicted apocalypse hasn’t materialized.
Moreover, privacy regulations can spur beneficial innovation. They create incentives for privacy-preserving technologies, for business models not dependent on surveillance, for systems designed with user rights in mind. Some of the most successful tech companies—Apple, for instance—have made privacy a competitive differentiator.
Real innovation creates value for users. If a business model only works by exploiting users’ data without meaningful consent, perhaps it’s not innovation worth preserving.
“Compliance costs will be too high”
Compliance costs are real, but they’re a) manageable, as European companies have demonstrated, and b) far lower than the costs imposed on society by the current system. When we account for the costs of data breaches, identity theft, discrimination, financial fraud, and all the other harms enabled by unregulated data collection, the balance sheet looks very different.
Moreover, a federal standard would actually reduce compliance costs compared to the current patchwork of state laws. Right now, companies face conflicting requirements across 20+ states. A single federal framework would provide clarity and consistency.
“This will hurt American competitiveness”
Competition doesn’t require a race to the bottom on privacy. In fact, American companies are already complying with GDPR for their European users, with various state laws for U.S. users, and with other privacy regimes globally. They’ve demonstrated they can adapt.
The real competitive threat is falling behind on privacy while other jurisdictions establish higher standards. As more countries adopt GDPR-style regulations, American companies that haven’t invested in privacy-respecting practices will find themselves at a disadvantage in global markets.
We’ve heard all these arguments before. Industries always claim that regulation will destroy them—right up until they adapt and move on. We regulated air quality, and American manufacturing didn’t collapse. We established workplace safety standards, and businesses didn’t flee en masse. We required seatbelts and airbags, and the automotive industry survived.
Privacy protection isn’t an impediment to legitimate business. It’s a basic consumer right that should be as fundamental as protection from fraud or false advertising.
Call to Action
The patchwork isn’t working. State leadership has pushed the needle forward and demonstrated what’s possible, but geographic lottery shouldn’t determine fundamental rights. A Californian’s data isn’t more deserving of protection than a Texan’s. A New Yorker’s privacy isn’t more important than a Floridian’s.
Federal legislation is the only solution. The American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) represents a bipartisan effort to establish national standards, but it has been stalled since 2024 by political disagreements and intense industry lobbying. The longer Congress delays, the more Americans are harmed.
What You Can Do
If you care about digital privacy—if you’re concerned about who has your data, what they’re doing with it, and how it might be used to harm you or others—you can take action:
Contact your representatives in Congress. Tell them you support comprehensive federal privacy legislation. Tell them the APRA should be strengthened to include data minimization requirements, third-party accountability, and seven-day deletion timelines. Make it clear that privacy protection is a priority for voters.
Support privacy advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and others working to advance digital rights. These organizations need resources to counter well-funded industry lobbying.
Exercise the rights you have. If you’re in a state with privacy protections, use them. Request your data. Request deletions. Make companies experience the operational burden of responding to rights requests—it creates incentives for better data practices.
Vote with your wallet. Support companies that respect privacy. Choose services that minimize data collection over those that maximize it. Reward business models that don’t depend on surveillance.
Demand data minimization and third-party restrictions in any federal bill. Don’t settle for weak legislation that establishes rights in theory but makes them practically impossible to exercise. The details matter enormously. Any federal privacy bill should include:
Data minimization requirements that limit collection to what’s necessary
Clear restrictions on third-party sharing
Seven-day deletion timelines without corporate-friendly loopholes
Strong enforcement with meaningful penalties
A private right of action so individuals can enforce their rights
Preemption of state laws only if the federal standard is stronger
The Vision
Imagine a future where digital rights are as fundamental as other constitutional protections. Where you have meaningful control over your personal information. Where companies can’t demand irrelevant data as a condition of service. Where third parties can’t buy and sell intimate details about your life without your knowledge.
Where data breaches don’t expose information about you held by companies you’ve never heard of. Where stalkers can’t purchase your location history. Where foreign adversaries can’t buy data about American citizens on the open market. Where your health information, your financial situation, your political beliefs, your religious practices remain private unless you choose to share them.
Where deletion actually means deletion—within days, not months. Where discovery is easy, access is straightforward, and accountability is real.
This isn’t utopian thinking. It’s a description of the protections Europeans already have under GDPR. It’s the reality Californians are moving toward with the Delete Act. It’s what Americans deserve from their federal government.
The technology exists to protect privacy while enabling innovation. The policy frameworks have been developed and tested. The public support is there—polls consistently show that 70-80% of Americans want stronger privacy protections and support national standards.
What’s missing is political will.
The data broker industry, big tech companies, and others benefiting from the current system have fought hard to prevent comprehensive federal legislation. They’ve lobbied, they’ve donated to campaigns, they’ve funded think tanks to produce favorable research. They’ve warned of innovation being stifled, competitiveness being lost, costs being too high.
But we’ve seen this playbook before. Every major consumer protection has faced similar opposition. And in every case, the dire predictions proved false while the protections proved essential.
Your data is yours. Not theirs to collect indiscriminately, not theirs to share promiscuously, not theirs to sell freely. Yours.
It’s time for federal law to reflect that reality.
It’s time for a Digital Bill of Rights—now.
The HAIA Foundation advocates for responsible AI development and deployment, including robust privacy protections in an increasingly data-driven world. Learn more at haia.foundation.