Summary#

HJ 72, listed as “Interim study of personal data sharing by DOT,” is a joint resolution requesting an interim study—not a bill that changes privacy law. Its text concerns personal information shared from Montana driver records by the Department of Justice (DOJ), not the Department of Transportation (DOT). The stated goal is to better understand the process and its effects; HJ 72 failed, so the requested study did not take effect.

• If adopted, it would have asked the Legislative Council to assign the study to an interim or statutory committee, or direct staff to do it.
• The study would examine why DOJ shares driver-record information and whether sharing is necessary; what information is shared and where it goes; how recipients use it; and its effects on Montanans.
• It would also examine whether sharing brings DOJ revenue and how DOJ tracks sharing, including which organizations receive a person’s data.
• If staff did the study, an appropriate committee would review its findings or conclusions. The work was to be completed before September 15, 2026, with results reported to the 70th Legislature.
• The resolution would not amend the Montana Driver Privacy Protection Act or change DOJ’s authority to disclose information.

What it means for you#

• Montanans with driver records: HJ 72 would not itself change what information DOJ may disclose or who may receive it. It proposed studying those practices.
• DOJ: The department would be the subject of the study. The resolution did not require it to change its sharing practices.
• Legislative Council and assigned committee or staff: They would have been asked to arrange and complete the study and, if staff conducted it, have a committee review the findings.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The resolution asked the Legislative Council to direct sufficient staff resources if it chose a staff-led study, but gave no cost estimate or specific staffing level.
• It does not appropriate money or set a fee.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set a detailed study method, such as how information would be gathered or whether people or organizations would be consulted.
• It does not define “personal information” or say what information DOJ currently shares in practice.
• The supplied material does not include the Driver Privacy Protection Act itself, so DOJ’s current legal authority and restrictions cannot be independently checked here.
• It does not say whether the study would lead to a bill, policy change, or public release of records beyond the required report.

Case for#

• The resolution appears intended to clarify what driver-record information is shared, with whom, and for what reasons.
• Examining recipients’ uses and effects on individuals could help lawmakers assess whether current sharing is necessary and protective of privacy.
• Reviewing DOJ’s tracking and any revenue from sharing could provide information about the department’s practices.

Case against#

• One concern is that a study would not itself limit disclosure or change how recipients use the information.
• The resolution does not set a detailed method or require input from people whose records may be shared.
• It asks for staff resources without estimating the cost or specifying how much staff time the study might take.