• On May 5, Montana became the first state to close the “data broker loophole,” prohibiting law enforcement from buying sensitive personal data (e.g., location history, financial records) from third-party brokers without a warrant.
• The law prevents agencies from bypassing Fourth Amendment protections by purchasing data (e.g., from firms like Fog Data Science) instead of obtaining judicial approval, addressing concerns about government overreach.
• The state has a history of strong privacy laws, including restrictions on facial recognition and DNA collection. SB 282 aligns with stalled federal proposals like the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act.
• The law maintains legal avenues for data access (warrants, subpoenas) but ensures sensitive information (health, religious data) isn’t exploited as a cheap surveillance tool, reinforcing constitutional rights.
• With federal inaction, Montana’s law sets a precedent for state-level privacy protections, demonstrating how grassroots efforts can curb surveillance abuses in the digital age.

On May 5, Montana became the first U.S. state to close what advocates call the “data broker loophole,” banning state and local law enforcement agencies from purchasing sensitive personal information from private firms without a warrant. Gov. Greg Gianforte’s signing of Senate Bill 282 (SB 282) marked a bold step in safeguarding privacy rights, sharply curbing the practice of law enforcement acquiring geolocation histories, financial records and other intimate details through third-party data brokers. By requiring judicial oversight, the law reasserts a principle central to the Fourth Amendment—individual liberty cannot be undermined by unchecked governmental access to private data. With federal efforts stalled, Montana’s precedent underscores growing state-level resistance to surveillance overreach.

A new line against data exploitation

SB 282 bars law enforcement from acquiring detailed digital footprints, including geolocation data, financial transaction records and biometric information, without securing a warrant or subpoena. Law enforcement agencies previously could circumvent Fourth Amendment protections by purchasing such data from companies like Fog Data Science—which Accumulates tracking logs from 250 million devices—rather than seeking court approval.

The law’s architects argue it addresses a critical gap: As technology evolves, so has the potential for abuse. “In the spy world and the military world, imagine what we’re capable of with all of this information available,” warned state Rep. Tracy Sharp, R-Polson, during hearings. “We need to put sideboards on this to protect our citizens from government overreach.”

Montana’s privacy legacy and federal contrasts

Montana has long been a leader in privacy legislation. Since 2021, it has limited facial recognition use, banned unauthorized DNA collection and amended its constitution to explicitly shield digital data from unreasonable searches. SB 282 aligns with federal proposals like the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), which stalled in Congress despite House passage in 2024.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights group, hailed Montana’s actions as model policy. “Montana shows what the federal government can’t do—hold authorities accountable,” said Matthew Guariglia, an EFF policy analyst. “Other states must follow.”

The law retains legal channels for law enforcement to access data, including warrants, subpoenas, or customer consent. However, it clarifies that monetary transactions alone cannot substitute for judicial oversight.

Broader implications for civil liberties

The legislation arrives amid mounting tension over encryption, government tracking and data privacy. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that prolonged GPS tracking constitutes a search, but lower courts have inconsistently applied that precedent. SB 282 plugs a critical loophole, ensuring that sensitive information—such as religious affiliations or health records—is not used as a low-cost surveillance tool.

Advocates stress that privacy protections and public safety aren’t mutually exclusive. “Montana isn’t saying police can’t get this data,” Guariglia noted, “just that they must follow the law.”

A states’ rights blueprint for the digital age

As privacy battles intensify, Montana’s law offers a blue-print for balancing security and liberty Grande dame. With Congress gridlocked, the move highlights how states can reinforce constitutional rights through pioneering laws. As technology outpaces federal oversight, citizens increasingly look to governors and legislatures to guard against surveillance creep—a principle Montana now enshrines in statute.

This law echoes earlier U.S. debates over checks on government power, from colonial-era resistance to the Writs of Assistance to modern clashes over NSA surveillance. Montana’s choice to legislate a digital “Fourth Amendment firewall” signals a new era in grassroots-driven privacy advocacy.

The cost of data, not liberty

Montana’s SB 282 underscores a truth: In an era of pervasive data collection, the price of privacy shouldn’t be negotiable. By rejecting warrantless purchases as a “backdoor” to unchecked authority, the state sets a standard for policymakers nationwide to uphold: On questions of individual freedom, nothing less than constitutional rigor will suffice.

Sources for this article include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

Eff.org

SAN.com