Asm. Jake Ryan Blumencranz

Expressed dismay that the budget lacks specific funding to combat anti-Semitism at CUNY and SUNY despite rising anti-Semitic attacks on campuses. He noted Jewish students are leaving New York schools due to safety concerns and that CUNY faces pending Office of Civil Rights cases.

Argued the bill claims to do something but simultaneously does nothing, with broad exemptions that exclude major practitioners of dynamic pricing. Questioned whether disclosure alone changes behavior when alternatives don't exist, and raised concerns about unintended consequences for small businesses using automated pricing software.

Argued the bill "says it does something and simultaneously does nothing at all," noting broad exemptions for financial institutions and their affiliates that would exclude major practitioners of dynamic pricing. Questioned whether disclosure alone would change behavior when consumers have no alternatives, and raised concerns about vague definitions and litigation risks for small businesses.

Argued the bill "says it does something and simultaneously does nothing at all," criticizing broad exemptions for financial institutions and their affiliates, the lack of empirical evidence of harm, and the absence of a private right of action. Questioned whether disclosure alone would change behavior when consumers have no alternatives, as with Ticketmaster's exclusive ticket sales.

Blumencranz raised numerous concerns about the bill's vagueness and implementation, including: unclear definitions of key terms like "reasonably linkable" and "strictly necessary"; potential conflicts with telehealth and wellness app business models that require data collection; ambiguity about whether HIPAA-exempt health services would be regulated; concerns that the 24-hour authorization rule could conflict with immediate service delivery; and worry that delegating rule-making to the Attorney General without legislative oversight amounts to unelected officials legislating policy.

The definition of "addictive feed" is dangerously broad and would capture news platforms, music streaming, book recommendation services, and other non-social-media applications. The bill delegates critical definitional work to the Attorney General without legislative oversight, and fails to address advertising and marketplace features.

Raised extensive concerns about the bill's overly broad definition of "addictive feed" that could capture news platforms, music streaming, book recommendation services, and other non-social media applications. Questioned whether the Attorney General has adequate expertise to implement the vague standards and expressed concern about lack of legislative oversight of future regulations.

Questioned whether the bill's inclusion of 'supportive' technologies (not just decision-making technologies) would create burdensome compliance requirements for agencies already facing historic backlogs and wait times. Expressed concern that understaffed agencies would need to hire ethicists and produce extensive reports, and that the Legislature lacks technical expertise to review assessments, potentially slowing benefit delivery.

Argued the bill's requirements for disclosing underlying algorithms and training data would deter vendors from bidding on state contracts, create confusion about proprietary data release, and impose complicated compliance burdens that would discourage innovation and slow service delivery to vulnerable populations.

Raised concerns that the bill's broad definition of 'automated decision-making' includes supportive technologies and could slow implementation of beneficial systems in agencies facing historic backlogs. Questioned whether understaffed benefit programs have resources to conduct required impact assessments and whether the bill would burden already overworked staff.

The bill's requirements for disclosing underlying algorithms and training data will deter vendors from bidding on state contracts due to proprietary concerns. The bill creates a confusing enforcement mechanism and will discourage innovation, ultimately harming the vulnerable populations it aims to protect by slowing service delivery and benefit processing.

Blumencranz raised concerns about conflating ethnicity with nationality and political borders, noting that listing countries like Iran as options could force individuals with different political beliefs or ethnic identities (like Persians) into categories that don't reflect their self-identification.

Raised concerns about conflating ethnicity with country of origin, questioned whether agencies would collect data inconsistently without specific guidelines, and expressed concern about potential use of data for benefit eligibility decisions affecting different communities differently. Also worried about geopolitical complexities and diaspora issues.

Raised extensive concerns about classification methodology, questioning whether country-of-origin categories adequately capture ethnicity, and whether inconsistent agency implementation would produce unreliable data. Expressed concern about potential use for benefit eligibility and geopolitical complications.

Blumencranz expressed concern that reports on the innovation center have not been publicly available since 2019, arguing that members lack transparency and adequate information to vote on the bill. He called for better public access to program information.

Blumencranz raised multiple concerns: the verification process for NYC IDs lacks transparency and state oversight, undocumented individuals with limited documentation may obtain the card through unclear processes, the bill's language is vague about what banking services must be provided, and banks may circumvent the requirement by imposing additional standards like Social Security numbers.

Expressed concern about state oversight of IDNYC issuance during the migrant crisis, arguing the bill forces banks to accept IDs without state oversight of the process. Worried the bill would accelerate settlement of undocumented individuals on Long Island and Westchester, and would create additional liabilities for existing customers.

Blumencranz opposed the inclusion of medical malpractice provisions, arguing they worsen New York's malpractice crisis with insurance costs in the Bronx at $200,000 annually for OB/GYNs versus $50,000 in LA. He warned the bill could cause as much harm as good and urged serious changes to remove malpractice provisions in future years.

Blumencranz expressed concern that a required report on the innovation center has not been publicly available since 2019, arguing that transparency is essential for members to understand what they are voting on.

Blumencranz raised concerns about the NYC ID verification process, noting that the Legislature lacks transparency into how the IDNYC program vets applicants and whether it includes biometrics or fingerprinting. He questioned whether undocumented individuals with limited documentation could obtain the ID and whether banks might circumvent the requirement by imposing additional standards like Social Security numbers.

The state lacks oversight of the IDNYC issuance process during a migration crisis. Requiring banks to accept these IDs without state oversight creates security concerns and may accelerate settlement of undocumented individuals in Long Island and Westchester.

The bill's definition of social media is unclear and could inadvertently prohibit communication via WhatsApp and Telegram, which are primary or sole communication methods for many immigrants and new Americans who lack traditional phone plans.

Criticized budget as tone-deaf to housing, affordability, and migrant crises. Expressed concerns about electric bus mandates, CRSE education mandate, and Good Cause Eviction as backwards approach, though praised squatting improvements.

Criticized budget as tone-deaf to housing, affordability, and migrant crises, objecting to Good Cause Eviction as backwards approach, CRSE education mandate without clear implementation, and electric bus implementation costs, though acknowledged incremental improvements on squatting.

Uniform deductible mandates will restrict insurance availability in coastal areas where the reinsurance market is already difficult. Insurance companies will simply stop selling policies if forced to meet government-set deductible limits, making homes uninsurable like in Florida.

Argued that fraud costs the insurance industry $300 billion annually and adds $400-700 yearly to consumer premiums, contended that insurers need access to financial information to detect fraud schemes like money funneling, and warned the bill could cause insurers to deny coverage in high-risk areas rather than investigate claims.

Argued that the six-month timeline for DFS to promulgate regulations is unrealistic and that standardization will stifle innovation in rapidly evolving insurance markets, particularly cyber insurance. Warned that the approach mirrors California's regulatory overreach, which drove insurers from the state and dismantled its homeowners market.

Argued the bill functions retroactively despite sponsor's claims and violates judicial precedent from Regina case cautioning against retroactive legislation. Contended the bill incentivizes leaving units vacant rather than creating new housing stock.

Argued the bill unfairly targets LLCs while exempting other corporate structures, and that the 23 exemptions allow large businesses and criminal organizations to evade disclosure while burdening small businesses and exposing law-abiding citizens' personal information.

Expressed uncertainty about whether government should mandate insurance decisions rather than leaving that to consumers and their brokers, noting he personally benefited from uninsured/underinsured coverage but questioned the government's role in making that choice for consumers.