A profile of lobbyist Andrew Kingman, who has exerted immense influence on US tech policy by helping large companies that want lax rules on data privacy
This is how he became the most influential lobbyist in data privacy: https://www.politico.com/... X: Eric Geller / @ericgeller : Congress isn't likely to do much on tech policy. That leaves state legislatures as the real front lines for lobbyists intent on weakening new privacy requirements. Great story from @al___ng about the king of that work: https://www.politico.com/... [image] Forums: r/Anticonsumption : Politico exposes the lobbyist leading the charge to weaken privacy laws r/privacy : Politico exposes the lobbyist leading the charge to weaken privacy laws Beehaw : State by state, one lobbyist is reshaping American tech laws
Context & Ripple Effects
This profile lands after privacy advocates shifted their focus to statehouses amid federal inaction, a path documented in the state-level push for stronger privacy laws. It also follows earlier reporting on technology companies lobbying in states as consumer privacy bills were drafted across multiple state legislatures.
The significance is not simply one lobbyist’s influence: it illustrates how the practical terms of US privacy policy can be decided jurisdiction by jurisdiction when Congress does not supply a national baseline.
First-order effects
- Large companies seeking lighter privacy obligations gain an experienced advocate in state legislative fights, while lawmakers and privacy advocates face more organized pressure to dilute proposed requirements.
- Kingman’s work concentrates the immediate policy contest in state capitals rather than Congress, where related coverage describes a sustained legislative impasse.
Second-order effects
- Privacy advocates may have to devote more resources to defending bill language state by state, rather than relying on momentum from a single state’s privacy-law breakthrough driven by activist pressure in California.
- Companies operating nationally must track a more contested and potentially uneven set of state privacy requirements, increasing the value of coordinated lobbying and compliance strategies.
Third-order effects
- If state-level lobbying repeatedly weakens new rules, US privacy governance could remain a patchwork shaped as much by legislative bargaining as by consumer-protection goals.
- The pattern reinforces a longer-running contest over whether privacy standards are set by states or by a federal framework; earlier industry support for federal preemption showed why that institutional choice matters to the scope of state protections.
The trend: With federal tech-policy action stalled, state legislatures are becoming the central arena where industry lobbying determines the strength and consistency of US privacy rules.