Don’t Sleep on Maryland: The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act Will Keep Health and Wellness Companies Up at Night

The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (“MODPA” or the “Act”), which takes effect October 1, 2025, establishes a set of novel requirements that will have a particular impact for companies operating in the health and wellness sectors. 

Most notably, the MODPA: 

  • Bans the “sale” of “sensitive data,” a term which is defined to include “personal data that a controller uses to identify a consumer’s physical or mental health status;” 

  • Requires that entities only collect and process “sensitive data” when doing so is “strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer;” 

  • Forbids covered entities from geofencing “mental health” or “reproductive or sexual health” facilities for the purpose of identifying, tracking, collecting data from, or sending notifications to consumers about their health; and 

  • Grants consumers the right to opt-out of “profiling” conducted for the purpose of making solely automated decisions resulting in the provision or denial of “health care services.” 

The structure of the Act’s exceptions provides far less leeway for non-Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) covered entities than do the exemptions provided by certain other state comprehensive privacy laws. 

Companies that collect and process health and wellness-related data will need to adapt their compliance programs to comply with the MODPA. Most critically, such entities must establish mechanisms to exclude sensitive data from sale data flows, to determine what data is “strictly necessary” for the provision of its products and services, and to exclude “sensitive data” that is not “strictly necessary” for such purposes from the scope of their collection and processing. 

Applicability 

The MODPA governs persons (not a defined term) that do business in Maryland or that target products or services as Maryland residents and that, during the prior calendar year, “(1) controlled or processed the personal data of at least 35,000 [Maryland residents] …or (2) controlled or processed the personal data of at least 10,000 [Maryland residents]…and derived more than 20% of its gross revenue from the sale of personal data.” §14–4602(1)

The Act exempts: 

  • Protected Health Information (“PHI”) covered Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) but does not provide entity-level exemptions for HIPAA Covered Entities or their Business Associates; 

  • Medical records data governed by Maryland’s medical records law, but only when that data is “held by an entity that is a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA;” and 

  • Data that has been de-identified in accordance with HIPAA, but only when data was derived from HIPAA-covered Individually Identifiable Health Information (“IIHI”) or “personal information consistent with the human subject protection requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” §14–4603(B)(1)-(6) 

Requirements 

The MODPA creates main two buckets of substantive requirements that will impact companies operating in the health and wellness spaces:  

  • A set of restrictive obligations for companies that collect and process “consumer health data,” §14–460(I)(1), and  

  • A separate set of requirements for the collection and processing of “sensitive personal data,” a term which it defines to include “consumer health data” as well as “genetic and biometric data” and data that reveals information about an individual’s “sex life.” §14–460(GG) 

The MODPA’s “consumer health data”-specific requirements forbid covered persons from: (1) granting an employee or contractor access to “consumer health data” unless the employee or contractor is subject to a duty of confidentiality or confidentiality is a condition of their employment; (2) sharing “consumer health data” with a processor unless the processor signs a contract that meets the Act’s requirements (see §14-4608); or (3) geofencing a “mental health” or “reproductive or sexual health” facility “for the purpose of identifying, tracking, or collecting data from, or sending any notification to a consumer regarding the consumer’s consumer health data.” §14–4604(1)-(3) 

The MODPA’s “sensitive data”-specific requirements (1) flatly prohibit the “sale” of “sensitive data” and (2) establish a novel data minimization standard, forbidding entities from collecting, processing, or sharing “sensitive personal information” unless such “collection or processing is strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer to whom the personal data pertains.” §14–4607(A)(1)-(2) 

It’s not clear how this data minimization standard will interact with the MODPA’s separate internal use exception, which could provide opportunities for entities to collect and process “sensitive data” for internal uses beyond those that are “strictly necessary” to provide the products and services that a consumer requests. This exception provides that an obligation imposed under the Act “may not restrict a controller’s or processor’s ability to collect, use, or retain personal data for internal use to: (iii) perform internal operations that are: 1. reasonably aligned with the expectations of the consumer or can be reasonably anticipated based on the consumer’s existing relationship with the controller; or 2. otherwise compatible with processing data in furtherance of: a. the provision of a product or service specifically requested by a consumer; or b. the performance of a contract to which the consumer is a party.” §14–4612(B)(2) 

The Act requires controllers to conduct data protection impact assessments, or DPIAs, “for each of the controller’s processing activities that present a heightened risk of harm to a consumer.” “Heightened risk of harm” is defined for purposes of this section to include any processing of “sensitive personal data.” §14–4610(b) Finally, the MODPA requires controllers to provide details in their privacy notices about the categories of “sensitive personal data” that they process and share with third parties. §14–4607(D) 

Consumer Rights 

Along with standard rights to opt out of the processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising and sale, the MODPA gives consumers the right to opt-out of “profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects,” including decisions that result in the provision or denial of access to health care services. §14–4605(B)(7)  

Enforcement 

Violations of the MODPA’s requirements are deemed to violate the state’s consumer protection act and are enforceable by the Maryland Attorney General (the “MD AG” or the “AG”). The MD AG may, but is not required to, provide companies with a right to cure before bringing enforcement actions under the Act, if it determines that a cure is possible. §14–4613; §14-4614 

 Amendments 

The Maryland Legislature is currently considering HB 1365, which would amend the MODPA’s restriction on the processing of personal data to align with those contained in other state comprehensive privacy laws. The amendment as currently drafted would not impact the Act’s sensitive data-focused restrictions. 

Hintze Law PLLC is a Chambers-ranked and Legal 500-recognized, boutique law firm that provides counseling exclusively on global privacy, data security, and AI law. Its attorneys and data consultants support technology, ecommerce, advertising, media, retail, healthcare, and mobile companies, organizations, and industry associations in all aspects of privacy, data security, and AI law.

Felicity Slater is an Associate at Hintze Law PLLC. Felicity has experience with global data protection issues, including data breach notification laws, privacy impact assessments, GDPR, and privacy statements.

 

Kate Black is a Partner at Hintze Law PLLC and is chair of the firm’s Health and Biotech Privacy Group, and co-chair of the Regulatory Defense Group, and Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Group.

Hintze & Partners Recognized by Chambers in 2025 Global Rankings

Hintze & Partners Recognized by Chambers in 2025 Global Rankings

Hintze Law and its lawyers have once again been recognized in Chambers & Partners for expertise in Privacy and Data Security in the 2025 Chambers Global Guide. These recognitions include Hintze Law’s fifth year being ranked as an Elite Law Firm for Privacy and Data Security as well as the firm’s second year receiving recognition for Privacy and Data Security: Healthcare.

Read More

Hintze Law PLLC Attorneys Selected for 2025 LCLD Fellows and Pathfinder Programs

Hintze Law PLLC Attorneys Selected for 2025 LCLD Fellows and Pathfinder Programs

Hintze Law is pleased to announce the two attorneys that have been chosen to participate in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD) professional development programs for 2025! Partner Sam Castic has been selected for the LCLD Fellows Program, designed for high-potential mid-career attorneys that have demonstrated strong leadership capabilities. Senior associate Emily Litka will represent Hintze Law in the LCLD Pathfinders Program, which recognizes early-career attorneys who exhibit signs of an emerging leader within their organization. 

Read More

Final COPPA Rule Amendments: Definitional Changes

Final COPPA Rule Amendments: Definitional Changes

By Susan Hintze, Emily Litka, and Amy Lanchester 

This is Part 2 in a series of blog posts about the 2025 COPPA Final Rule. It provides a comprehensive review of the revised definitional changes to the Rule.  Subsequent posts in the coming days will delve more deeply into the direct and online notice, parental consent, and data governance requirements. Our unofficial redlined copy of the Final Rule can be found here.

Read More

New York Legislature Passes Extraordinarily Restrictive Health Data Privacy Bill

New York Legislature Passes Extraordinarily Restrictive Health Data Privacy Bill

By Mike Hintze and Felicity Slater

Last year, we wrote about a proposed New York State law that would have significant impacts for entities that process health and wellness related data. That bill failed to pass before the 2024 legislative session ended. But today, in the early days of the 2025 session, the New York State legislature has passed Senate Bill S929 (SB S929), which is essentially unchanged from last year’s bill.  

Read More

Workplace Privacy – 5 Things I’m Keeping in Mind for 2025

Workplace Privacy – 5 Things I’m Keeping in Mind for 2025

By Jennifer Ruehr

Many of us are returning to work this month with New Year’s resolutions, predictions, and lists top of mind, and top of inbox.  As I turn back to work, I’m thinking ahead to how U.S. laws and regulations are going to impact my clients from a workforce perspective.  Here’s what is top of mind for me right now: 

  1. Fair Credit Reporting Act 

  2. State law AI requirements 

  3. Biometrics in the workplace 

  4. Genetic data risk 

  5. Workplace monitoring 

Read More

The FTC Issues Final COPPA Rule Amendment

The FTC Issues Final COPPA Rule Amendment

By Susan Hintze and Emily Litka

This is Part 1 in a series of blog posts about the 2025 COPPA Final Rule. It provides a high-level overview of the Final Rule. Subsequent posts in the coming days will delve more deeply into individual aspects of the Final Rule and FTC comments, the issues raised, and implications for specific industry sectors.Our unofficial redlined copy of the Final Rule can be found here.

Read More

In ‘Holy Redeemer’ Settlement Agreement, OCR Continues to Prioritize Privacy Protections for Reproductive Health Information

In ‘Holy Redeemer’ Settlement Agreement, OCR Continues to Prioritize Privacy Protections for Reproductive Health Information

by Felicity Slater and Kate Black

On November 26, 2024, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a resolution agreement and corrective plan with Pennsylvania’s Holy Redeemer Hospital (Holy Redeemer). The agreement settles OCR’s claim that Holy Redeemer disclosed a patient’s protected health information (PHI)—including intimate reproductive health details—without a permissible purpose or valid authorization from the patient in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule

Read More

A Last-Minute Push for a Reproductive Health Privacy Law in Michigan

A Last-Minute Push for a Reproductive Health Privacy Law in Michigan

By Mike Hintze and Felicity Slater 

On November 7, 2024, the Michigan legislature introduced Senate Bill 1082 / House Bill 6077, the Reproductive Data Privacy Act (the “RDPA” or the “act”). The act was introduced in the aftermath of the 2024 election cycle as Michigan Democrats brace to lose control of the House in 2025. At a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing and Human Services, lawmakers backing the RDPA expressed a hope to pass the act before the year’s end. 

Read More

Hintze Law PLLC Recognized in 2025’s Best Law Firm Rankings

Hintze Law PLLC Recognized in 2025’s Best Law Firm Rankings

We are pleased to share that Hintze Law has been recognized for excellence in Information Technology Law and Technology Law in the 2025 edition Best Law Firms® rankings. The firm has been ranked in these areas both nationally and in the Seattle area.  

Read More

California Enacts "genAI" Laws That Introduce New Privacy and Transparency Requirements, Amongst Others 

California Enacts "genAI" Laws That Introduce New Privacy and Transparency Requirements, Amongst Others 

By Emily Litka

In September 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed a number of new generative AI (“genAI”) bills into law. These laws address risks associated with deepfakes, training dataset transparency, use of genAI in healthcare settings, privacy, and AI literacy in schools. California is the first US state to enact such sweeping genAI regulations.

Read More

FTC Introduces Novel Ban in Its Settlement with NGL Labs and Scrutinizes AI Representations

By Emily Litka

On July 9, 2024, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office (LA DA) reached a settlement with NGL Labs, the maker of the “NGL: ask me anything” app and its co-founders. The complaint alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), and similar California state laws. In the complaint, the FTC and LA DA also brought claims against NGL’s cofounders individually. 

Read More