On April 27, 2023, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law the My Health My Data Act (the "Act"), which will regulate the collection, use, and disclosure of "consumer health data" ("Consumer Health Data" or "CHD"). The Act is intended to provide stronger privacy and security protections for health-related information not protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), but a significant gap remains. In spite of its title and purported focus on the health information of Washington residents, a careful reading of the Act shows that it will have a much broader reach – both geographically and substantively. Most provisions of the Act come into effect on March 31, 2024, with small businesses required to comply by June 30, 2024. Some sections (e.g., Section 10 prohibition against "geofencing") do not provide effective dates. It is unclear whether those sections become effective on July 22, 2023, which would be 90 days after the end of the legislative session, as provided under Washington law, or whether failure to include an effective date for all sections of the Act was an oversight.
The Act applies to entities that conduct business in Washington, or that "produce" or "provide" products or services that are targeted to consumers in Washington, and that determine the purpose and means of collecting or using CHD ("regulated entities"). This includes "small businesses," which are regulated entities that: (a) collect, process, sell, or share the consumer health data of fewer than 100,000 consumers in a calendar year; or (b) derive less than 50% of gross revenue from collecting, processing, selling, or sharing CHD, and control, process, sell, or share the CHD of fewer than 25,000 consumers. Unlike other state privacy laws, the Act does not exempt these smaller businesses but merely postpones by three months the date by which small businesses must come into compliance.
Also unlike other state privacy laws that protect that state's residents, the Act defines "consumers" broadly to include not just Washington residents but also any natural person whose CHD is "collected" in Washington. And because the Act defines "collect" to mean "buy, rent, access, retain, receive, acquire, infer, derive, or otherwise process consumer health data in any manner," any regulated entity located anywhere – including outside of the U.S. – that retains or processes CHD in Washington, or that contracts with a "processor" (as defined in the Act, and including a cloud or other service provider) that retains, processes (e.g., stores) or allows access to CHD in Washington, will be subject to the Act with respect to the CHD of any natural person, regardless of where that natural person resides.
"Consumer health data" is broadly defined as personal information[1] that is linked or reasonably linkable to a consumer and that identifies the consumer's past, present, or future physical or mental health status. The Act includes a long, non-exhaustive list of data elements that comprise CHD (CHD "includes, but is not limited to" the elements listed) and covers some information that is not typically thought of as health-related. The list of CHD includes the following:
While some of these data elements describe information that typically is associated with health-related conditions or treatment, some go far beyond that. For instance, the definition of CHD could capture grocery items purchased that might indicate someone is diabetic. Or it could be broadly interpreted to encompass a consumer's online browsing history showing a search for information about yoga studios or other wellness activities. An open question is when precise location information would reasonably indicate that a consumer has attempted to acquire – or has acquired – health care services or supplies. For example, it is not clear whether precise location information showing that someone went to a hospital is CHD because someone could visit a hospital for treatment or to visit a friend or family.
Most important, because "consumers" include any natural person whose CHD is "collected" (e.g., "retained" or "processed") in Washington, this could include the CHD of, for example, a New York resident whose search request is initially collected and analyzed by a company in California but later stored on or accessed from a server in Washington—including by a cloud services provider that hosts some of its customers' data in Washington.
The Act does not apply to such data in an employment (e.g., HR-related records) or commercial (i.e., B2B) context. De-identified data and publicly available data are excluded from the definition of "personal information" and therefore are not CHD. The Act includes a long list of other exemptions:
Regulated entities will need to carefully evaluate the information that they "collect" to determine what information could be deemed covered CHD, and they will need to be mindful of how such information is handled by the business and its cloud services provider or other processors to determine whether it has a nexus to Washington, however tenuous. One consequence of the Act may be that companies will implement data localization provisions, including in their contracts with cloud service providers and other processors, to prevent data from being stored, handled or otherwise "collected" in Washington.
The Act imposes some of the most rigorous obligations in any state privacy law thus far, including:
Invalid Authorizations: The authorization will not be valid if the expiration date has passed, if it lacks all of the required information, has been revoked by the consumer, has been combined with one of the other documents to create a compound authorization, or if it conditions the provision of goods and services on the signing of the authorization.
Recordkeeping: The seller and purchaser must retain copies of all valid authorizations for six years from the date of signature or the date when the valid authorization was last in effect, whichever is later. A copy of the signed valid authorization must be provided to the consumer as well.
The Act's exemptions appear to leave a large regulatory gap related to health information that the Washington legislature likely did not intend. Specifically, the Act generally exempts categories of information from other data privacy laws, without regard to limitations on the scope of such laws. For example, the Act exempts PHI, as defined under HIPAA. But HIPAA only applies to HIPAA-covered entities and business associates and therefore only protects PHI when held by covered entities or business associates. Because the Act's exemption is tied to the type of information (e.g., PHI) – and not to who maintains it (i.e., PHI held by covered entities and business associates) – it appears to leave PHI that is unprotected by HIPAA also unprotected by the Act when such data is no longer in the hands of a covered entity or business associate.
This gap will likely have consequences for consumers. For example, the federal government has been engaged in a years-long effort to improve interoperability and exchange of health information. This includes requiring certain health care providers to make PHI available through application programming interfaces ("APIs") so that consumers can readily download their health information to the consumer application of their choice. After the information is downloaded on the consumer's app, it still technically qualifies as PHI under HIPAA because it is individually identifiable health information that was created by a health care provider. But it will no longer be protected by HIPAA, and based on the Act's exemption, this highly sensitive health information arguably will be exempt from – and therefore unprotected by – the Act as well. In this case, a consumer would need to rely on other laws, such as Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, with respect to the privacy and security of such sensitive health data.
Unlike other states that have taken steps since the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to prohibit health care providers from releasing certain medical information related to reproductive care to law enforcement,[2] the Act does not specifically address law enforcement access to CHD. However, when Governor Inslee signed the Act, he also signed HB 1469, which prohibits Washington recipients from complying with out-of-state subpoenas, court orders, warrants, and extradition requests regarding gender and reproductive health care for in-state residents as well as those from other states who come to Washington to obtain "protected health care services," which is defined to include gender-affirming treatment and reproductive health care services. In addition, Washington providers of electronic communications services (such as ILECs and ISPs) are also prohibited from providing records or information in response to subpoenas, warrants, court orders, or other civil or criminal legal process that relates to an investigation into, or the enforcement of, another state's law that asserts criminal or civil liability for the provision, receipt, attempted provision or receipt, assistance in the provision or receipt, or attempted assistance in the provision or receipt of protected health care services that are lawful in the state of Washington.
This may fill the gap in the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) proposed amendments to HIPAA that would further safeguard the privacy of reproductive health care information in the wake of Dobbs but that would apply only to PHI and therefore would not apply to CHD.
A violation of the Act is an "unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition" subject to and actionable under Washington's consumer protection act, RCW 19.86 ("WCPA"). The WCPA allows any person[3] "injured in his or her business or property" by a violation of the WCPA to bring a civil action for injunctive and monetary relief to recover "actual damages sustained," which may be trebled but not to exceed $25,000, plus costs and attorney's fees. This privacy-related private right of action is similar to the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA"), although the Act here does not provide for statutory damages, only for actual damages sustained. Some precedent suggests that plaintiffs may not assert WCPA claims for "personal injuries," while other precedent suggests that information privacy violations may constitute an injury to property, so courts will need to determine the nature of violations related to CHD that constitute a violation of the Act, as it is clear that the legislature intended violations of the Act to be actionable under the WCPA.
But beyond a BIPA-like private right of action, "claimants" (not defined in the Act) in a "private action" (suggesting only those injured in their "business or property") alleging "an unfair or deceptive act or practice … may establish that the violation is injurious to the public interest" because it violates a statute that incorporates the WCPA (like the Act) or the violation "(a) injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons." While there is no separate provision for injunctive or declaratory relief under this provision, and the private right of action provision does allow for injunctive relief where there is an injury to a consumer's business or property, this section might allow for an injured consumer to seek a declaratory ruling that could thereafter be used by others to establish their own claim for damages. In addition to the private right of action, and similar to the other state privacy laws that allow for enforcement by the state attorney general, the Washington attorney general may investigate violations of the WCPA and bring an action "in the name of the state, or as parens patriae on behalf of persons residing in the state," for injunctive and monetary relief, "as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired, regardless of whether such person purchased or transacted for goods or services directly with the defendant or indirectly through resellers."
[1] "Personal information" means "information that identifies or is reasonably capable of being associated or linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer."
[2] See Cal. Civ. Code § 56.108 (prohibiting a health care provider from releasing, in response to a subpoena or request under another state's laws, medical information related to an individual seeking or obtaining an abortion).
[3] For the purpose of the section authorizing a private right of action for violations of the WCPA for unfair or deceptive acts or practices (among other violations), a "person" authorized to bring suit "includes the counties, municipalities, and all political subdivisions of this state."