Loading policy item
SB 1587
SB 1587 prohibits Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker provides a written attestation that the data will not be sold or transferred to any entity using it for federal immigration enforcement. The measure creates exceptions for court orders, public records disclosures, and publicly available information shared under consistent terms. It takes effect 91 days after the legislative session ends.
Generated explanation · Enrolled · Analyzed 8/21/2026 · Open official Enrolled text
Generated analysis of Enrolled text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Enactment and effective dates are separate. Effective dates have not been verified here; provisions may take effect at different times. Check the official text.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This measure became law. Enactment does not establish that every provision is already effective; check each effective date in the official text.
SB 1587 prohibits Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker provides a written attestation that the data will not be sold or transferred to any entity using it for federal immigration enforcement. The measure creates exceptions for court orders, public records disclosures, and publicly available information shared under consistent terms. It takes effect 91 days after the legislative session ends.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Legislative staff identified a 'Lack of existing prohibitions on public bodies' sale of data' as an issue discussed, noting that Oregon's consumer privacy laws (OCPA) specifically exclude public bodies, leaving a gap in protections for government-held data regarding data brokers.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Staff Measure Summary B; Staff Measure Summary A
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit restriction on transferring data to entities using it for 'federal immigration law' enforcement suggests the measure aims to prevent Oregon government records from being leveraged by federal immigration authorities through commercial data channels.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
State agencies, cities, counties, and other public entities must implement a process to collect and evaluate written attestations from data brokers before sharing PII. They bear the administrative burden of verifying attestation validity and may face operational disruptions if brokers refuse to comply.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Entities defined under ORS 646A.593 must provide written attestations limiting the use of Oregon government PII regarding federal immigration enforcement to contract with public bodies. Refusal or false attestation results in loss of access to public body data.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Individuals whose PII is held by public bodies gain a layer of protection against their government data being sold or transferred to entities that might use it for federal immigration enforcement via data brokers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Public bodies must update vendor contracts and data-sharing protocols to require the specific attestation. Data brokers must modify terms of service or provide specific attestations for Oregon public body contracts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office report no revenue impact and minimal fiscal impact on government expenditures, though agencies may incur administrative costs to implement compliance processes.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B; IS_Impact SB 1587 4
The text relies on public bodies rejecting attestation if they 'reasonably believe' it contains material misrepresentations. It does not establish a private right of action, civil penalties, or a designated state agency for enforcement of this specific provision.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Oregon Residents
A data broker receives PII from the Department of Transportation and sells it to a commercial entity that subsequently uses that data to assist federal immigration agents in identifying undocumented individuals, leading to deportations. Under SB 1587, the public body would be prohibited from providing the data initially, preventing the chain of disclosure and protecting residents from government-facilitated immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Public Bodies and Data Brokers
A legitimate data broker offering fraud detection services for a county's benefit programs refuses to sign the attestation because their standard contract allows transfer to affiliates that could theoretically be used by any government entity, including federal agencies. The public body rejects the attestation under Section 1(2)(b), forcing the broker out of the market and leaving the public body without access to essential fraud prevention tools, potentially increasing program costs or errors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The reliance on subjective belief without an objective standard or external audit mechanism allows public bodies to interpret 'material misrepresentations' broadly, potentially extending beyond the text's focus on immigration enforcement.
Sources · Enrolled
The measure balances the protection of Oregon residents' government-held personal information from being funneled into federal immigration enforcement against the administrative burden on public bodies and potential restrictions on their ability to contract with data brokers who refuse specific use-limiting attestations.
Prevents Oregon government data from supporting federal immigration enforcement via commercial channels; fills a privacy gap for public bodies left by the OCPA.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Imposes administrative compliance costs on public bodies; may disrupt legitimate data broker relationships if brokers cannot or will not provide the required attestation; lacks clear enforcement mechanisms or penalties for violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version removes the 'declaring an emergency' language from the bill title and Section 2, replacing it with 'prescribing an effective date.' It adds a new exception allowing public bodies to disclose publicly available information under the same terms and conditions as available to the general public. The effective date is changed to the 91st day after adjournment sine die, removing any emergency effective date provision.
Removed emergency declaration and associated immediate effective date; replaced with standard post-session effective date.
Eliminates the urgency of implementation and aligns the measure with standard legislative timing.
Sources · Enrolled; House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Added exception for publicly available information disclosed under consistent terms.
Clarifies that public bodies may continue to share data that is already public without triggering the attestation requirement, provided the disclosure terms match those available to the general public.
Sources · Enrolled; House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The removal of the emergency declaration reduces the urgency of compliance but does not alter the substantive tradeoff between privacy protection and administrative burden.
Model self-rating: high. The enrolled bill text is complete and unambiguous regarding the prohibition, attestation requirement, exceptions, and effective date. Official fiscal and staff analyses are provided for the relevant version. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
SB 1587 would prohibit Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker would provide a written attestation that the data would not be sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, with exceptions for court orders, public records laws, and publicly available information disclosed under matching terms; it would set an effective date of 91 days after adjournment sine die.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: House Amendments to A-Engrossed; Staff Measure Summary B
The measure addresses a lack of existing prohibitions on public bodies' sale of data to data brokers, specifically regarding immigration enforcement use.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The insertion of the 'same terms and conditions' exception for publicly available information suggests an effort to clarify that standard public records disclosures do not trigger the attestation requirement, likely responding to concerns about overbreadth or conflicts with existing public access laws.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would have to implement processes to collect and verify written attestations from data brokers before disclosing personally identifiable information; would have to reject attestations containing material misrepresentations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would have to provide written attestations regarding restrictions on immigration enforcement use of data; cannot rely on public body disclosures for immigration enforcement purposes without compliance.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Indirect benefit from reduced risk of personally identifiable information being aggregated by data brokers and sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Public bodies would have to establish attestation collection and review procedures, creating administrative obligations despite minimal fiscal impact.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
The 'same terms and conditions' exception for publicly available information may create ambiguity regarding whether standard public records requests could be used to bypass attestation requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Legislative Revenue Office and Legislative Fiscal Office reports indicate no revenue impact and minimal fiscal impact on government expenditures.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: IS_Impact SB 1587 4; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Vulnerable immigrant communities
A public body successfully blocks all personally identifiable information disclosures to data brokers, preventing the creation of a comprehensive database that could be used for targeted immigration enforcement, thereby protecting residents from deportation risks based on aggregated public records.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Data brokers or public bodies
Potential effect if enacted: A data broker claims information is 'available to the general public' and discloses it under loose terms, effectively bypassing the attestation requirement for sensitive personally identifiable information that happens to exist in public databases, rendering the law ineffective for that data class; alternatively, a public body refuses to disclose vital public records due to fear of misclassifying the disclosure terms.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
The text would require public bodies to reject attestations only if they 'reasonably believe' there are misrepresentations, placing a verification burden on the recipient rather than providing an independent enforcement mechanism.
Sources · House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades administrative compliance burdens on public bodies and data brokers for enhanced privacy protections against immigration enforcement data aggregation, while carving out exceptions that may limit the scope of protection for publicly accessible records.
Potential effect if enacted: Prevents public bodies from inadvertently facilitating immigration enforcement through data broker markets.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would establish a clear attestation mechanism and exceptions for legal disclosures.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Ambiguity in the 'same terms and conditions' exception may create loopholes or access barriers for public records.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Reliance on public body judgment for attestation rejection may lead to inconsistent enforcement.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is based on the exact published bill text and official supporting analysis. Rationale claims are grounded in staff summary; possible rationale is bounded by text insertion. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would prohibit Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker would provide a written attestation that the data would not be sold or transferred for immigration enforcement, add an exception for publicly available information disclosed under standard terms, and delay implementation until 91 days after the legislative session ends.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely reflects a legislative compromise to address implementation concerns by narrowing the scope of the prohibition and removing the emergency declaration, while preserving the core privacy safeguard against immigration enforcement data transfers.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Would have to implement processes to verify and retain written broker attestations, reject materially false ones, and adjust data-sharing workflows to accommodate the new exception for publicly available records.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Would have to draft and submit specific written attestations regarding immigration enforcement use before receiving PII from public bodies, potentially altering contract terms or declining certain data requests.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Gain indirect privacy protection by reducing the likelihood that their personal data held by government entities would be funneled to commercial brokers for immigration enforcement purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Public bodies would need to screen data broker requests against the new attestation requirement and the public records exception before releasing PII.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Verification of written attestations, documentation of rejections for material misrepresentations, and compliance with the delayed effective date would be required.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Minimal direct fiscal impact per legislative revenue and fiscal offices, but administrative costs would arise from legal review, IT system would update, and staff training.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: Existing public records access under ORS 192.311 to 192.478 and court-ordered disclosures remain unaffected; publicly available data disclosed under standard terms is exempted.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
The measure would apply to Oregon public bodies and uses Oregon statutory definitions (ORS 432.005, ORS 646A.593, ORS 174.109); it does not incorporate federal definitions or override federal immigration enforcement authority.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Oregon public bodies and residents
Potential effect if enacted: A public agency successfully blocks a data broker from aggregating sensitive resident location or financial records for resale to immigration enforcement contractors, preventing potential civil rights violations or targeted surveillance.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Data brokers and legitimate data users
A legitimate commercial or academic data broker is denied access to publicly available property or business records because the attestation requirement is applied overly broadly or would lack clear verification standards, causing operational delays and lost economic activity.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction rests on whether disclosures strictly follow statutory exceptions and whether attestation verification is substantively reviewed rather than treated as a formality.
Sources · Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades administrative simplicity and unrestricted data flow for enhanced privacy safeguards against potential immigration enforcement misuse, while preserving existing public records access.
Potential effect if enacted: Targeted privacy protection and reduced risk of sensitive data exploitation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Potential effect if enacted: Alignment with existing consumer privacy frameworks and broker registration requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Potential effect if enacted: Compliance burdens on government IT and legal staff for attestation tracking and legal review.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Potential friction in legitimate commercial or research data transactions due to reliance on broker self-certification without independent verification mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, current bill context, and official legislative revenue/fiscal/staff documents. No external speculation or unverified claims are included. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The bill legally bars Oregon government entities from sharing personally identifiable information with commercial data brokers unless those brokers certify in writing that the data would not be sold or transferred to anyone who would use it for federal immigration enforcement, with exceptions for mandatory public records requests and court orders. It would take effect immediately upon passage.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Senate Amendments to Introduced; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to close a regulatory gap where Oregon public bodies could legally transfer resident data to commercial brokers without restrictions, potentially facilitating federal immigration enforcement despite state privacy laws that exclude government entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Would have to implement attestation verification workflows and halt PII disclosures to brokers lacking valid certifications. Subject to immediate implementation due to the emergency clause.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Senate Amendments to Introduced; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Would have to provide written attestations regarding immigration enforcement restrictions to access government-held PII, adding a compliance and contractual hurdle.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Gain a statutory layer of protection against their government-held personal data being funneled into commercial networks for potential federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Public bodies would have to establish compliance processes to collect, review, and reject invalid attestations based on a subjective 'reasonably believes' standard.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Fiscal impact is minimal for state and local governments, though smaller municipalities may face administrative costs to build verification systems.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: The emergency clause triggers immediate implementation upon passage rather than a delayed effective date, compressing the compliance timeline.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Oregon residents / Public bodies
Potential effect if enacted: A public body successfully blocks the sale of sensitive health or housing records to a broker, preventing those records from being used in a federal immigration raid targeting undocumented residents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Public bodies / Data brokers
A data broker would provide a technically compliant but vague attestation; a public body, fearing liability or administrative burden, overbroadly refuses all data sharing, disrupting legitimate commercial services (e.g., utility billing aggregators or municipal analytics vendors) that rely on government data feeds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
The text would permit attestation submission and acceptance if compliant. However, weak enforcement or misclassification could allow brokers to continue immigration-related transfers under false pretenses, or enable agencies to arbitrarily deny lawful data requests by claiming 'reasonable belief' in misrepresentation without objective criteria.
Sources · Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure prioritizes resident privacy and limits government complicity in federal immigration enforcement over administrative convenience and uninterrupted commercial data flows between public agencies and private brokers.
Would strengthen state-level privacy protections by explicitly restricting a pathway for government data to support federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Would create a uniform attestation requirement that simplifies compliance tracking for public bodies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The subjective 'reasonably believes' standard for rejecting attestations may lead to inconsistent enforcement or arbitrary denials across different agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Immediate emergency effective date compresses the compliance timeline, potentially straining smaller municipalities with limited IT and legal resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided bill text, fiscal statements, and staff summaries. No external speculation was used. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would prohibit Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker would provide a written attestation that the data would not be sold or transferred to entities using it for federal immigration enforcement, with exceptions for public records requests and court orders. If adopted, it would create a new compliance obligation for state and local agencies, would restrict commercial data flows from government records, and shifts regulatory focus from broker conduct to government disclosure practices without establishing penalties or verification protocols for noncompliance.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to prevent Oregon government-held records from being funneled into commercial databases used for federal immigration enforcement, addressing a gap where the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act excludes public bodies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact SB 1587 A6; Staff Measure Summary A
Would have to implement attestation verification procedures for data broker requests; faces increased administrative burden and potential loss of commercial data-sharing channels. The amendment operates within Oregon statutory framework despite referencing federal immigration law purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Revenue Impact Statement A
Would have to provide written attestations regarding immigration enforcement use to access government-held PII; faces potential loss of a data source if attestation is rejected or deemed unverified.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain a procedural barrier against their government records being sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, though no direct private right of action is created for this specific provision.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Potential effect if enacted: may face reduced access to Oregon government-held PII through commercial data broker channels, potentially increasing reliance on direct legal processes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public bodies would have to establish procedures to request, review, and retain written attestations from data brokers before disclosing PII. They would have to also assess a 'reasonably believes' standard for rejecting false attestations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Minimal direct fiscal impact per Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office statements, but indirect administrative costs would fall on affected agencies to draft policies, train staff, and monitor compliance. No explicit penalty or enforcement mechanism is created for public bodies that fail to comply; the statute relies on internal agency discretion.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public records requests under ORS 192.311–192.478 remain unaffected, meaning data brokers could still obtain PII through standard public records channels without the attestation requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Oregon residents and local governments
A county clerk successfully blocks a data broker from purchasing arrest records that would later be used to target undocumented residents for federal immigration raids, effectively shielding thousands of residents from indirect government surveillance without violating public records transparency laws.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
State agencies and commercial data users
Potential effect if enacted: A state agency, fearing administrative complexity or political liability, broadly interprets 'reasonably believes' to reject all data broker requests, inadvertently disrupting legitimate commercial research, academic studies, or public safety analytics that rely on aggregated government data for non-immigration purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The statute would lack audit requirements, standardized attestation formats, or third-party verification mechanisms, leaving compliance entirely to agency discretion and broker self-reporting.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades administrative simplicity and unrestricted government data sharing for a targeted procedural barrier against immigration enforcement data flows, creating compliance costs for public bodies while offering no direct private enforcement mechanism or verification protocol.
Would create a transparent, attestation-based checkpoint that may reduce the volume of Oregon government records funneled into commercial databases used for federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Preserves public records transparency by explicitly exempting disclosures required under ORS 192.311–192.478 and court orders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would impose unquantified administrative burdens on public bodies without providing implementation guidance, verification standards, or enforcement remedies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement A; Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Relies on self-reported broker attestations with no audit or penalty mechanism, creating risk of noncompliance or symbolic compliance that fails to materially restrict data flows.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: medium. The amendment text is clear in its prohibitions and exceptions, but lacks implementation rules, verification mechanisms, or enforcement provisions. Official fiscal statements confirm minimal direct impact but do not address indirect administrative costs or operational feasibility. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would prohibit Oregon public agencies from sharing personally identifiable information with data brokers unless the broker submits a written certification that the data would not be sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, creating a new compliance verification step for state and local governments while preserving existing public records and court order exceptions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure aims to prevent government-held records from entering commercial databases that could be leveraged for federal immigration enforcement, shifting regulatory focus from private broker conduct to public sector data sharing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would have to implement procedures to collect, review, and validate written attestations from data brokers before disclosing personally identifiable information, with authority to reject disclosures if the attestation would contain material misrepresentations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would have to draft and maintain compliant attestation language to access government-held personally identifiable information; failure to provide a valid attestation results in loss of data access.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain a procedural barrier against their government data being sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, though the protection does not apply to information already subject to public records laws or court orders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public agencies would need to establish intake workflows to verify broker attestations and document rejections based on reasonable belief of material misrepresentation, falsehoods, or omissions. Data brokers would have to align their attestation language with the statutory standard. The measure does not generate direct revenue impact but would impose indirect administrative costs for legal review and compliance tracking. Eligibility for data access is now contingent on attestation validity rather than commercial contract terms. Enforcement relies on agency self-assessment rather than a dedicated regulatory body, and public records requests under ORS 192.311 through 192.478 remain unaffected. While the amendment incorporates definitions from existing Oregon statutes (ORS 646A.593, ORS 432.005, ORS 174.109), the operative restriction remains an Oregon-law change governing public bodies, not a federal or private-sector mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Oregon public bodies and residents
A public agency successfully would identify a material omission in a broker's attestation, preventing the transfer of sensitive housing or health records to a commercial database and blocking their subsequent use by federal immigration enforcement during a policy shift.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Oregon public bodies and data brokers
Potential effect if enacted: A data broker submits an attestation with legally ambiguous language that a public body's staff misclassifies as compliant, resulting in unauthorized disclosure that triggers administrative penalties or litigation against the agency for failing to catch material falsehoods.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The text relies on agency discretion to evaluate attestation validity without defining objective compliance standards or establishing an oversight mechanism, increasing reliance on internal legal review and raising the risk of inconsistent application.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure prioritizes preventing government data from fueling federal immigration enforcement over maintaining seamless public records compliance and administrative efficiency. Upsides include enhanced privacy safeguards for residents against potential immigration-related data exploitation; downsides include increased administrative burdens on public agencies, potential delays in lawful data sharing, and reliance on unverified broker attestations rather than direct regulatory oversight.
Potential effect if enacted: Enhanced privacy safeguards for residents against potential immigration-related data exploitation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Increased administrative burdens on public agencies, potential delays in lawful data sharing, and reliance on unverified broker attestations rather than direct regulatory oversight.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is strictly derived from the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative revenue/fiscal summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
42 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted rewrite removes the broker-side general civil-enforcement prohibition and substitutes a public-body disclosure condition focused on immigration.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted rewrite removes the broker-side general civil-enforcement prohibition and substitutes a public-body disclosure condition focused on immigration.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section, “brokered personal data” and “data broker” have 5 the meanings given those terms in ORS 646A.593. 6 (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a data broker may not sell or 7 otherwise provide brokered personal data to any person or entity if the data broker has”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section: 5 (a) “Data broker” has the meaning given that term in ORS 646A.593. 6 (b) “Personally identifiable information” has the meaning given that term in ORS 432.005. 7 (c) “Public body” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.109. 8 (2)(a) Except as provided in subsection (3) o”
A-Engrossed
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted -4 amendment changes the regulated actor, conduct, legal mechanism and protected purpose, replacing the original data-broker prohibition with a public-body disclosure rule.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section, “brokered personal data” and “data broker” have 5 the meanings given those terms in ORS 646A.593. 6 (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a data broker may not sell or 7 otherwise provide brokered personal data to any”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section: 5 (a) “Data broker” has the meaning given that term in ORS 646A.593. 6 (b) “Personally identifiable information” has the meaning given that term in ORS 432.005. 7 (c) “Public body” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.109. 8 (2)(a) Except as provided”
A-Engrossed
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for SB 1587 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
Delete lines 4 through 25 of the printed bill and insert: 2 “SECTION 1.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number SB 1587.
Chief sponsors: Senator Wlnsvey Campos, Representative Willy Chotzen, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Farrah Chaichi, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Representative Lamar Wise
Regular sponsors: Senator Lew Frederick, Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Chris Gorsek, Senator Kayse Jama, Senator James Manning Jr., Senator Mark Meek, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Senator Janeen Sollman, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative David Gomberg, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Zach Hudson, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Hai Pham, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Nathan Sosa, Representative Thuy Tran, Representative Jules Walters
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Third Reading Of Senate Measures · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Wlnsvey Campos
Third Reading Of Senate Measures · Version A
House carrier
Representative Willy Chotzen
Third Reading Of Senate Bills · Version B
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Possible Consideration of House Amendments · Version B
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
42 events
Full timeline
42 entries shown.
Effective date, June 5, 2026.
Chapter 96, 2026 Laws.
Governor signed.
Speaker signed.
President signed.
Senate concurred in House amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 11--Anderson, Girod, Hayden, Linthicum, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Smith DB, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 1--Drazan.
Third reading. Carried by Chotzen. Passed.
Ayes, 33; Nays, 14--Boice, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Edwards, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, McIntire, Owens, Reschke, Smith G, Wallan, Wright; Absent, 6--Boshart Davis, Harbick, Osborne, Scharf, Skarlatos, Yunker; Excused, 4--Diehl, Hartman, Levy E, Mannix; Excused for Business of the House, 3--Elmer, Javadi, Walters.
Second reading.
House Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed B-Engrossed.
Staff Measure Summary · Version B
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Public Hearing and Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 3 · Room HR 50 · Prohibits public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to a data broker unless the data broker attests that the information will not be sold or transferred to any entity that will use it to enforce federal immigration law.
IS_Impact SB 1587 A6
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A6 adopted
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Campos, Prozanski. Passed.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 9--Anderson, Girod, Hayden, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 3--Drazan, Linthicum, Smith DB.
Carried over to 02-24 by unanimous consent.
Second reading.
Senate Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng.)
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 8 · Room HR C · Prohibits data brokers from providing data to others for purposes related to enforcement of civil law, except pursuant to a court order.
IS_Impact SB 1587 4
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -4 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 6 · Room HR C · Prohibits data brokers from providing data to others for purposes related to enforcement of civil law, except pursuant to a court order.
Amendment -4 proposed
Informational Meeting scheduled.
Informational Meeting
Heard · Agenda item 9 · Room HR C · Prohibits data brokers from providing data to others for purposes related to enforcement of civil law, except pursuant to a court order.
Referred to Judiciary.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
NDMENT: The amendment replaces the measure. BACKGROUND: In 2023, Oregon enacted House Bill 2052, requiring data brokers to register before collecting, selling, or licensing br
he 91st day following adjournment sine die. BACKGROUND: In 2023, Oregon enacted House Bill 2052, requiring data brokers to register before collecting, selling, or licensing br
Source title: Prohibits public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to a data broker unless the data broker attests that the information will not be sold or transferred to any entity that will use it to enforce federal immigration law.This source title may describe an earlier version. Read the current brief and version history above.
“Effective date, June 5, 2026.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.