Maryland’s Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA) America’s Most Restrictive State Privacy Law

On October 1, 2025, Maryland became the 18th U.S. state to enforce a comprehensive consumer privacy law. What stands out however is that the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA) is far from just another state privacy regulation following California’s privacy framework. Legal experts and privacy professionals are calling MODPA “one of the more operationally challenging privacy laws passed in the United States to date,” and for good reason: Maryland has crafted provisions that break from the emerging state privacy law consensus in ways that significantly increase compliance complexity particularly around sensitive data processing, minor protections, and data minimization requirements.

Why MODPA’s Unique Requirements Make It the Most Operationally Challenging U.S. Privacy Regulation—And How Maryland Businesses Can Achieve Compliance With Our Software

For Maryland businesses, out-of-state companies serving Maryland residents, and privacy professionals navigating the increasingly fragmented U.S. privacy landscape, understanding MODPA’s unique provisions isn’t optional it’s essential to avoiding enforcement actions, operational disruptions, and the reputational damage that accompanies privacy violations in an environment where consumer trust increasingly determines competitive success.

This comprehensive guide examines what makes MODPA different from other state privacy laws, identifies the surprising requirements that most businesses are overlooking, and provides actionable frameworks for achieving, how Captain Compliance can automate your privacy requirements, and how this will help your organization maintain Maryland data privacy compliance and avoid very expensive fines.

Understanding MODPA: The Basics of Maryland’s Privacy Law

The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act regulates how businesses (defined as “controllers”) and service providers (defined as “processors”) collect, use, share, and protect Maryland residents’ personal data. Signed into law on May 9, 2024, by Governor Wes Moore, MODPA took effect on October 1, 2025, with certain provisions particularly universal opt-out mechanisms requiring compliance by the 1st of this month.

Who Must Comply: MODPA Applicability Thresholds

MODPA applies to any person that conducts business in Maryland or produces products or services targeted to Maryland residents and meets one of the following thresholds:

Threshold Option 1: Controls or processes the personal data of at least 35,000 Maryland consumers (excluding personal data controlled or processed solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction)

Threshold Option 2: Controls or processes the personal data of at least 10,000 Maryland consumers AND derives more than 20% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data

These thresholds position MODPA as moderately accessible compared to other state laws. California’s CCPA threshold is 100,000 consumers (or $25 million revenue, or 50% revenue from data sales), while Virginia’s VCDPA uses 100,000 consumers (or 25,000 consumers with 50% revenue from data sales). Maryland’s 35,000-consumer threshold means more businesses fall under MODPA’s jurisdiction than some other state laws, while the 10,000/20% threshold specifically targets data brokers and companies with business models dependent on personal data monetization.

Key Exemptions: Who MODPA Doesn’t Cover

Like most state privacy laws, MODPA includes exemptions for:

• Government agencies and political subdivisions
• Financial institutions subject to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)
• Covered entities and business associates under HIPAA (HIPAA Companies Have ECPA Lawsuits to worry about)
• Nonprofit organizations
• Higher education institutions
• Data subject to specific federal regulations (FERPA, FCRA, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, etc.)

However, businesses should note that these exemptions are narrow. A healthcare provider covered by HIPAA for patient health information is not exempt from MODPA for employee data, marketing data, or website visitor data. Similarly, a financial institution’s GLBA exemption doesn’t extend to non-financial activities or subsidiaries not covered by federal banking regulations.

What Makes MODPA Different: The Provisions That Set Maryland Apart

While MODPA shares structural similarities with other comprehensive state privacy laws consumer rights, controller obligations, processor responsibilities Maryland has departed from the emerging consensus model in several critical areas that dramatically increase compliance complexity and operational impact.

1. The Strictest Minor Protection Standard in the United States

Perhaps MODPA’s most distinctive feature is its treatment of individuals under 18 years old. While most state privacy laws provide enhanced protections for children under 13 (following COPPA’s framework) or sometimes under 16, MODPA prohibits processing personal data of anyone under 18 for targeted advertising or sale if the controller “knew or should have known” the individual was a minor.

This provision creates three unprecedented challenges:

Age Threshold Expansion: Raising the protected age from 13 or 16 to 18 means businesses must apply stricter data handling to a significantly larger population. The difference between protecting 13-year-olds and 18-year-olds isn’t merely quantitative—it’s qualitative. Teenagers aged 16-17 represent major consumer demographics for numerous products and services, from colleges and universities to automotive companies, financial services, retail, and entertainment. Businesses accustomed to marketing to high school juniors and seniors must now completely restructure their data practices.

“Should Have Known” Standard: Most state privacy laws use a “willful disregard” or “actual knowledge” standard for child-directed processing. MODPA’s “should have known” standard is dramatically broader, effectively imposing a duty to investigate and verify age whenever there’s reason to believe an individual might be under 18. This constructive knowledge standard means businesses cannot simply ignore age indicators or avoid implementing age verification—if contextual factors suggest youth (educational email domains, school-related interests, content consumption patterns typical of adolescents), businesses are deemed to “should have known” regardless of actual knowledge.

Targeted Advertising and Sale Prohibition: The law doesn’t merely require consent for processing minors’ data—it flatly prohibits using personal data of individuals under 18 for targeted advertising or selling such data, even with parental consent. This absolute prohibition eliminates the consent-based workarounds many businesses use for child data processing, forcing complete operational segregation of minor data from advertising and monetization systems.

Practical Implications: Businesses serving age-diverse populations must implement robust age verification or estimation systems, segregate data systems to prevent minor data from flowing into advertising platforms, and potentially forgo significant revenue streams from audiences that include individuals under 18. Educational technology companies, social media platforms, gaming companies, and content streaming services face particularly acute challenges given their user bases skew young and their business models often depend on advertising revenue.

2. Unprecedented Data Minimization Requirements for Sensitive Data

While most state privacy laws include data minimization principles, MODPA goes substantially further—particularly for sensitive personal data. The law establishes a strict standard: businesses cannot collect, process, or share sensitive personal data unless such collection, processing, or sharing is “strictly necessary” to provide or maintain the requested product or service.

This “strictly necessary” standard for sensitive data represents the most restrictive data minimization requirement in any U.S. state privacy law. Compare this to other states:

• California (CCPA/CPRA): Requires businesses to limit collection to what is “reasonably necessary” for disclosed purposes
• Virginia (VCDPA): Requires data collection to be “adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary”
• Colorado (CPA): Similar “reasonably necessary” standard

Maryland’s “strictly necessary” language eliminates the flexibility that “reasonably necessary” provides. Under MODPA, businesses cannot justify sensitive data processing based on business convenience, secondary use cases, or indirect benefits—the processing must be indispensable to delivering the core service the consumer requested.

What Qualifies as Sensitive Personal Data Under MODPA:

The law defines sensitive data to include:

• Personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis or condition, sexual orientation, citizenship or immigration status
• Genetic or biometric data processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual
• Personal data of a known child (under 18)
• Precise geolocation data (within a radius of 1,750 feet)

Additionally, sensitive data includes any personal data for which a consumer has provided consent for processing, meaning businesses essentially convert standard personal data into sensitive data through the consent mechanism.

Operational Impact: The strictly necessary standard forces businesses to conduct granular assessments of every sensitive data processing activity, documenting precisely why the processing is indispensable rather than merely useful. Marketing analytics, behavioral profiling, cross-product data sharing, and secondary research uses of sensitive data become difficult or impossible to justify under this standard. Businesses accustomed to broadly permissive consent-based frameworks must fundamentally restructure data processing to eliminate any sensitive data use not absolutely required for core service delivery.

3. Absolute Ban on Selling Sensitive Data

Beyond restrictive processing standards, MODPA flatly prohibits selling sensitive personal data under any circumstances. This absolute prohibition exists regardless of consent, business justification, or data anonymization techniques.

Most state privacy laws allow selling sensitive data with explicit consent or opt-in mechanisms. MODPA eliminates this option entirely. Businesses whose revenue models depend on monetizing sensitive data health and wellness apps sharing biometric data with advertisers, location services selling precise geolocation to data brokers, identity verification services selling biometric identifiers—face fundamental business model challenges in Maryland.

The prohibition extends to data sales that other state laws might not capture through broad definitions of “sale.” MODPA defines sale as “the exchange of personal data for monetary or other valuable consideration,” capturing barter arrangements, data-for-service exchanges, and other value transfers beyond direct financial transactions.

Impact on Health and Wellness Industry: Health and wellness companies face particularly acute challenges under MODPA’s sensitive data provisions. Fitness apps collecting biometric data, mental health platforms processing health diagnoses, fertility tracking apps handling reproductive health information, and nutritional apps analyzing dietary data all process sensitive information under MODPA’s definition. These companies cannot sell such data to advertisers, data brokers, or research organizations, and can only process it for purposes strictly necessary to deliver core app functionality. Revenue models built on data monetization become non-viable in Maryland without fundamental restructuring.

We are seeing such a huge rise in privacy lawsuits that even if under the MODPA’s threshold they will be hit with a private right of action lawsuit or a pen trap and trace wiretapping suit around CIPA or a Federal ECPA lawsuit that it makes sense to just be compliant and avoid expensive class action lawsuits from firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys & Tauler Smith.

4. Strict Limits on Processing Regardless of Consent

Perhaps MODPA’s most philosophically significant departure from other state laws: consent cannot override data minimization requirements or the prohibition on selling sensitive data. While most U.S. privacy laws treat consent as a universal legitimizing mechanism—if consumers consent, businesses can generally proceed with otherwise restricted processing Maryland establishes that certain processing activities remain prohibited even with explicit consumer permission.

This consent-limitation approach aligns more closely with European GDPR philosophy, where consent must be supplemented by legitimate processing grounds, than with the consent-centric frameworks common in U.S. state laws. Under MODPA, businesses cannot simply obtain broad consent and proceed with any processing activity; they must independently justify processing based on necessity standards and respect absolute prohibitions regardless of consent status.

What This Means Operationally: Businesses accustomed to solving privacy obligations through comprehensive consent mechanisms must recognize that consent serves limited purposes under MODPA. You cannot:

• Obtain consent to sell sensitive data (the sale remains prohibited)
• Use consent to justify sensitive data processing that isn’t strictly necessary
• Rely on consent to process minor data for targeted advertising
• Deploy consent as a blanket authorization for unrestricted data use

Consent remains relevant for specific purposes authorizing processing that meets necessity standards, enabling opt-in rights, legitimizing certain voluntary data sharing but it cannot override MODPA’s structural prohibitions and limitations.

5. Universal Opt-Out Mechanisms: Technical Requirements with Tight Deadlines

MODPA requires controllers to recognize universal opt-out mechanisms that allow consumers to signal opt-out preferences through browser settings, device configurations, or platform-level controls. This requirement, common in recent state privacy laws, includes an important timing element: businesses must recognize universal opt-out signals already or risk fines.

The universal opt-out requirement responds to consumer frustration with having to submit individual opt-out requests to every website and service they use. Instead, consumers should be able to configure a single preference—similar to “Do Not Track” signals that businesses automatically recognize and respect.

Technical Implementation Challenges:

• Global Privacy Control (GPC): Most businesses will implement universal opt-out through Global Privacy Control, a browser signal enabling users to communicate opt-out preferences automatically. However, GPC support varies across browsers, and businesses must implement detection and response mechanisms.
• Signal Scope Determination: When a business receives a universal opt-out signal, it must determine which processing activities the opt-out covers. Does it apply only to data sales? To targeted advertising? To all processing not strictly necessary? MODPA requires businesses to honor the signal for applicable processing activities but doesn’t provide detailed implementation guidance.
• Verification and Fraud Prevention: Businesses must balance honoring opt-out signals with preventing fraudulent signals that could disrupt legitimate service delivery. Implementing appropriate verification without creating friction that defeats the opt-out mechanism’s purpose requires careful technical design.
• Integration Across Systems: Universal opt-out signals must propagate across all systems processing consumer data marketing platforms, advertising networks, analytics tools, and data sharing with third parties. Achieving this technical integration within the compressed implementation timeline challenges businesses with complex technology stacks.

Consumer Rights Under MODPA: What Maryland Residents Can Demand

Like other comprehensive state privacy laws, MODPA grants Maryland consumers specific rights regarding their personal data. Understanding these rights helps businesses design compliant request fulfillment processes and prepare for the operational demands of responding to consumer requests.

The Right to Know and Access

Consumers can request confirmation of whether a business is processing their personal data and access to the specific personal data the business holds about them. Businesses must respond within 45 days (with possible 45-day extension if reasonably necessary).

Compliance Challenges: Responding to access requests requires comprehensive data inventory systems that can locate all instances of a consumer’s personal data across databases, backups, email systems, document repositories, and third-party processors. Manual approaches quickly become unsustainable as request volumes increase.

The Right to Correct Inaccuracies

Consumers can request correction of inaccurate personal data, taking into account the nature of the personal data and the purposes of processing. This right recognizes that data accuracy matters differently depending on context—credit information demands greater accuracy than marketing preference data.

Compliance Considerations: Businesses must establish processes for evaluating correction requests, verifying the proposed corrections, and propagating accurate data across all systems and to third parties who received the inaccurate data. Correction requests for data received from other sources (data brokers, public records, third-party integrations) require procedures for validating corrections without simply accepting all consumer assertions.

The Right to Delete

Consumers can request deletion of personal data provided by or obtained about them. Businesses must comply unless exceptions apply (completing transactions, security purposes, legal obligations, internal uses reasonably aligned with consumer expectations).

Operational Impact: Deletion requests require technical capability to purge data across production systems, backups, disaster recovery systems, and third-party processors. “Soft deletes” that merely flag records as deleted without removing them typically don’t satisfy the deletion right unless technically infeasible to fully delete.

The Right to Data Portability

Consumers can request personal data in a portable, readily usable format that allows transfer to another entity “where technically feasible.” This right enables consumers to switch service providers without losing their data history.

Technical Requirements: Businesses must export data in structured, commonly used formats (JSON, CSV, XML) that other services can import. The data must be complete, accurate, and provided in format the average consumer or receiving business can process without specialized software.

The Right to Opt-Out

Maryland consumers can opt out of:

• Personal data sales
• Targeted advertising using their data
• Profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects

Targeted Advertising Definition: MODPA defines targeted advertising as displaying advertisements selected based on personal data obtained from consumer activities over time and across non-affiliated websites or online applications. This captures behavioral advertising and cross-site tracking but excludes contextual advertising based solely on current website content.

Profiling Definition: Profiling means automated processing of personal data to evaluate, analyze, or predict personal aspects concerning an individual’s economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability, behavior, location, or movements. The opt-out applies specifically when such profiling produces legally or similarly significant effects.

Maryland Consumer Request Mechanisms: How Businesses Must Accept Requests

MODPA requires businesses to provide one or more “reasonably accessible” methods for consumers to submit rights requests, considering factors including:

• The usual method by which the business communicates with consumers
• The volume and nature of requests the business typically receives
• The ability to verify consumer identity and authenticate requests
• Security and reliability of the request mechanism

Most businesses implement dedicated privacy request portals (see our Data Subject Request Portal that’s perfect to resolve this), email addresses, and toll-free phone numbers. Automated request management systems become essential for businesses receiving substantial request volumes.

Controller Obligations: What Maryland Businesses Must Do

Beyond responding to consumer rights requests, MODPA imposes affirmative obligations on businesses processing Maryland residents’ personal data.

Privacy Policy Requirements

Controllers must provide reasonably accessible privacy notices clearly describing:

• Categories of personal data processed
• Purposes for which personal data is processed
• How consumers can exercise their rights under MODPA
• Categories of personal data shared with third parties (if any)
• Categories of third parties with whom personal data is shared (if any)
• Whether the business sells personal data or uses it for targeted advertising, and how consumers can opt out

Privacy policies must be written in plain, understandable language and must be available in languages reflecting the business’s customer base. This is a solution that Captain Compliance provides and keeps your privacy notices up to date without the need to keep on revising it with expensive law firms.

Best Practices: Rather than generic template language, effective privacy policies specifically describe the business’s actual data practices, use concrete examples, and organize information to answer questions consumers actually have about data use. To resolve just hire and use the Captain Compliance privacy notice generator software that constantly updates.

Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs)

Controllers must conduct and document data protection impact assessments for processing activities that present heightened risk of harm to consumers, including:

• Targeted advertising
• Sale of personal data
• Profiling that may produce legal or similarly significant effects
• Sensitive data processing
• Processing that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of:
  • Unfair or deceptive treatment or unlawful disparate impact on consumers
  • Financial, physical, or reputational injury
  • Physical or other intrusions upon the solitude or seclusion, or private affairs or concerns, of consumers where the intrusion would be offensive to a reasonable person
  • Other substantial injury to consumers

DPIAs must identify and weigh the benefits of processing against potential risks to consumers, and describe safeguards implemented to mitigate those risks.

Compliance Challenge: DPIA requirements force businesses to proactively analyze risk rather than simply documenting data practices. Effective DPIAs require cross-functional collaboration between legal, privacy, security, product, and engineering teams to accurately assess risks and implement meaningful safeguards.

Purpose Limitation and Data Minimization

Controllers must:

• Limit personal data collection to what is adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary for disclosed purposes
• Not process personal data for purposes incompatible with the disclosed purposes without consumer consent
• Implement data minimization by collecting only data necessary for identified purposes

For sensitive data, the standard escalates to “strictly necessary” as discussed earlier.

Operational Implications: Businesses must audit data collection practices to identify unnecessary data gathering, implement technical controls preventing over-collection, and establish governance processes ensuring new data collection receives proper justification and limitation.

Data Security Requirements

Controllers and processors must establish, implement, and maintain reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security practices appropriate to the volume and nature of personal data processed.

While MODPA doesn’t specify particular security measures, reasonable practices generally include:

• Encryption of data in transit and at rest
• Access controls limiting data access to authorized personnel
• Regular security assessments and vulnerability testing
• Incident response plans
• Employee training on data security
• Vendor security due diligence

Risk-Based Approach: Security measures must be proportionate to the sensitivity of data and risks of unauthorized access. Processing large volumes of sensitive data requires correspondingly robust security controls.

Contracts with Processors

When controllers engage processors (service providers processing personal data on the controller’s behalf), MODPA requires binding contracts that:

• Clearly instruct the processor regarding processing purposes and scope
• Obligate the processor to comply with MODPA
• Require the processor to implement appropriate security measures
• Restrict the processor from processing personal data for purposes beyond the controller’s instructions
• Impose confidentiality obligations on processor personnel
• Authorize the controller to monitor and audit processor compliance
• Require the processor to assist the controller in responding to consumer requests
• Mandate that the processor delete or return personal data upon contract completion

Sub-Processor Management: If processors engage sub-processors, contracts must require the processor to impose equivalent obligations on sub-processors through binding agreements.

Comparing MODPA to Other State Privacy Laws: A Regulatory Landscape Analysis

Understanding MODPA’s position within the broader U.S. privacy law landscape helps businesses operating in multiple states identify where Maryland requires additional compliance efforts beyond baseline multi-state programs.

MODPA vs. California (CCPA/CPRA)

California’s privacy law remains the most comprehensive and mature state privacy framework, often serving as the de facto national standard.

Key Differences:

• Applicability: California’s threshold (100,000 consumers or $25M revenue) is higher than Maryland’s (35,000 consumers), meaning more businesses must comply with MODPA
• Minor Protections: California protects individuals under 16 (requiring opt-in consent for data sales); Maryland protects under 18 (flat prohibition on sales and targeted advertising)
• Sensitive Data: California requires opt-in consent for sensitive data processing; Maryland prohibits selling sensitive data entirely and imposes stricter processing limitations
• Data Minimization: California requires “reasonably necessary” collection; Maryland requires “strictly necessary” for sensitive data
• Private Right of Action: California provides limited private right of action for data breaches; Maryland provides no private right of action
• Enforcement: California has dedicated Privacy Protection Agency; Maryland enforcement is through the Attorney General

Strategic Implication: Businesses complying with CCPA/CPRA must enhance their programs to meet MODPA’s stricter sensitive data and minor protection requirements.

MODPA vs. Virginia (VCDPA)

Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act represents the moderate consensus model many subsequent states have followed.

Key Differences:

• Minor Protections: Virginia prohibits targeted advertising for children under 13 without verifiable parental consent; Maryland prohibits processing for anyone under 18 if the controller “should have known”
• Sensitive Data: Virginia requires opt-in consent; Maryland prohibits sales entirely and limits processing to strictly necessary purposes
• Universal Opt-Out: Virginia requires recognition but with different implementation timeline; Maryland requires compliance by October 1, 2025
• Data Minimization: Virginia uses “reasonably necessary” standard; Maryland uses “strictly necessary” for sensitive data

Strategic Implication: Virginia compliance provides a foundation, but businesses must significantly enhance sensitive data controls and minor protections for Maryland.

MODPA vs. Colorado (CPA)

Colorado’s privacy law includes relatively strong consent requirements and consumer protections.

Key Differences:

• Minor Protections: Colorado prohibits targeted advertising for consumers under 13 without verifiable parental consent; Maryland extends protection to age 18
• Sensitive Data: Colorado requires opt-in consent; Maryland prohibits sales and uses stricter necessity standard
• Universal Opt-Out: Both require recognition; implementation timelines differ
• Enforcement: Colorado provides private right of action for violations after January 1, 2025; Maryland has no private right of action

Strategic Implication: Colorado’s relatively strict framework prepares businesses well for Maryland, though enhanced minor protections and sensitive data controls remain necessary.

The Fragmentation Challenge: Operating Across Multiple State Privacy Laws

As of October 2025, 18 states have comprehensive privacy laws with varying requirements, thresholds, definitions, consumer rights, and enforcement mechanisms. Businesses serving national markets face unprecedented compliance complexity. It is imperative to use software by Captain Compliance to comply otherwise it’s impossible to do so without software.

Common Fragmentation Issues:

• Inconsistent Definitions: “Sensitive data” definitions vary across states, requiring businesses to classify data differently depending on jurisdiction
• Varying Thresholds: Different consumer counts and revenue percentages determine applicability, meaning businesses may be subject to some state laws but not others
• Conflicting Requirements: One state may permit processing that another prohibits, forcing businesses to default to the strictest requirements to maintain consistent national practices
• Different Enforcement: Attorney General enforcement, dedicated privacy agencies, and private rights of action create varying enforcement landscapes

Multi-State Compliance Strategies:

1. Highest Common Denominator: Implement the strictest requirements across all states, ensuring compliance with the most demanding law covers less strict jurisdictions
2. Jurisdiction-Specific Controls: Implement technical controls that identify consumer location and apply jurisdiction-specific requirements, though this increases technical complexity
3. Selective Market Participation: Some businesses conclude that compliance costs for certain jurisdictions exceed potential revenue, leading to market exit from states with particularly demanding requirements

Maryland’s strict requirements make it a likely candidate for highest common denominator treatment—businesses implementing MODPA’s sensitive data and minor protection controls will exceed requirements in most other states.

Enforcement and Penalties: Understanding Maryland’s Regulatory Approach

MODPA grants exclusive enforcement authority to the Maryland Attorney General, prohibiting private rights of action. This centralized enforcement approach differs from some states (Colorado, California for certain violations) that allow private enforcement.

Enforcement Timeline and Cure Period

Initial Cure Period (October 1, 2025 – April 1, 2027): During the first 18 months of enforcement, the Attorney General must provide businesses written notice of alleged violations and a 60-day opportunity to cure before initiating enforcement actions. This grace period allows businesses to correct inadvertent violations without penalties.

Post-Cure Period (After April 1, 2027): The 60-day cure period sunsets on April 1, 2027, after which the Attorney General can immediately pursue enforcement actions without providing cure opportunities for violations.

Strategic Implication: Businesses should prioritize achieving full MODPA compliance before the cure period sunsets in April 2027. Violations discovered after that date may result in immediate penalties without correction opportunities.

Penalty Structure for MODPA Violations

MODPA authorizes civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. While the law doesn’t explicitly define whether each affected consumer constitutes a separate violation or whether different processing activities constitute separate violations, enforcement patterns from other states suggest regulators may calculate penalties by multiplying per-violation amounts by the number of affected individuals.

For a business processing data of 100,000 Maryland consumers in violation of MODPA, penalties could theoretically reach $1 billion ($10,000 × 100,000) if each consumer represents a separate violation. While such extreme penalties are unlikely in practice, the statutory structure creates significant exposure for businesses with large customer bases.

Factors Affecting Penalties for Marylands Privacy Law:

While MODPA doesn’t specify penalty calculation factors, enforcement actions in other states typically consider:

• Duration of the violation
• Number of consumers affected
• Whether violations were intentional or negligent
• Prior violations and compliance history
• Good faith efforts to comply
• Cooperation with enforcement investigation
• Harm suffered by consumers
• Business’s size and financial resources

Businesses that demonstrate proactive compliance efforts, promptly address violations upon discovery, and cooperate with enforcement inquiries generally receive more favorable penalty treatment than those showing disregard for legal obligations.

MODPA Compliance: Practical Implementation Steps

Achieving MODPA compliance requires systematic assessment, planning, and implementation across legal, technical, and operational dimensions.

Step 1: Determine Applicability

Assessment Questions:

• Do we conduct business in Maryland or target Maryland residents?
• How many Maryland consumers’ personal data do we process?
• What percentage of revenue derives from data sales?
• Do any exemptions (GLBA, HIPAA, nonprofit status) apply to our organization or specific data processing activities?

Documentation: Record the applicability analysis, including consumer counts, revenue calculations, and exemption determinations, establishing the factual basis for compliance obligations.

Step 2: Inventory Personal Data Processing

Data Mapping Exercise:

• Identify all systems, databases, applications, and repositories containing personal data
• Catalog categories of personal data collected, processed, and stored
• Document purposes for which each data category is used
• Map data flows showing how personal data moves between systems, departments, and third parties
• Identify which data qualifies as “sensitive” under MODPA’s definition
• Determine which processing activities involve individuals under 18

Output: Comprehensive data inventory and processing flow diagrams providing visibility into personal data throughout the organization.

Step 3: Conduct Gap Analysis

Compare current data practices against MODPA requirements:

Consumer Rights Implementation:

• ☐ Can we receive, verify, and respond to access requests within 45 days?
• ☐ Can we correct inaccurate data and propagate corrections to third parties?
• ☐ Can we delete consumer data across all systems including backups?
• ☐ Can we export portable data in standard formats?
• ☐ Can we process opt-out requests for sales, targeted advertising, and profiling?

Sensitive Data Processing:

• ☐ Is all sensitive data processing “strictly necessary” for core service delivery?
• ☐ Are we selling any sensitive data that must cease?
• ☐ Have we eliminated sensitive data processing based solely on consent without necessity justification?

Minor Data Protection:

• ☐ Can we identify when consumers are or may be under 18?
• ☐ Have we eliminated all targeted advertising using minor data?
• ☐ Have we stopped selling minor personal data?

Controller Obligations:

• ☐ Do privacy policies accurately describe our data practices?
• ☐ Have we conducted DPIAs for high-risk processing?
• ☐ Do we have contracts with all processors meeting MODPA requirements?
• ☐ Do we recognize universal opt-out signals?
• ☐ Have we implemented data minimization and purpose limitation?
• ☐ Are security measures appropriate for the data we process?

Step 4: Design and Implement Remediation

Based on gap analysis, prioritize and execute remediation activities:

High Priority (Must Complete Before October 1, 2025):

• Implement universal opt-out signal recognition
• Establish consumer rights request mechanisms
• Update privacy policies
• Execute compliant processor contracts
• Eliminate prohibited processing (selling sensitive data, targeted advertising using minor data)

Medium Priority (Should Complete by Q1 2026):

• Implement automated data subject request fulfillment
• Conduct required DPIAs
• Strengthen data security measures
• Implement comprehensive data minimization

Ongoing:

• Monitor regulatory guidance and enforcement actions
• Update practices as business activities evolve
• Train employees on MODPA requirements
• Audit third-party processor compliance

Step 5: Establish Ongoing Compliance Program

MODPA compliance isn’t a one-time project but requires continuous program maintenance:

Governance Structure:

• Assign clear accountability for privacy compliance
• Establish cross-functional privacy committee with legal, IT, security, and business representation
• Create escalation paths for privacy issues
• Define roles and responsibilities for privacy program activities

Monitoring and Auditing:

• Conduct periodic privacy audits assessing compliance with MODPA
• Monitor processor compliance through contracts and audits
• Track metrics (request response times, data breach incidents, privacy training completion)
• Review and update data inventories as business evolves

Training and Awareness:

• Provide MODPA training to employees handling personal data
• Train customer service representatives on consumer rights requests
• Educate marketing teams on minor data and targeted advertising restrictions
• Conduct executive briefings on privacy risks and compliance status

Vendor Management:

• Maintain inventory of all processors
• Ensure contracts meet MODPA requirements
• Conduct security assessments of high-risk processors
• Monitor processor compliance and incident reporting

The Future of Maryland Privacy Regulation: What Comes Next

MODPA represents the current state of Maryland privacy regulation, but the regulatory landscape continues evolving. California constantly updates and changes things with CCPA which was amended to CPRA and then was just updated with new requirements for the 1st of next year. Expect the same in Maryland.

Potential Regulatory Developments

Expanded Enforcement: As the cure period sunsets in April 2027, expect the Attorney General to pursue more aggressive enforcement, potentially including substantial penalties for significant violations.

Regulatory Guidance: Maryland authorities may issue guidance clarifying ambiguous MODPA provisions, particularly around:

• How to determine if a controller “should have known” a consumer was under 18
• What processing qualifies as “strictly necessary” for sensitive data
• How to implement universal opt-out mechanisms
• When profiling produces “legal or similarly significant effects”

Legislative Amendments: Maryland may amend MODPA based on implementation experience, potentially:

• Adjusting applicability thresholds
• Expanding or refining consumer rights
• Modifying enforcement provisions
• Harmonizing with emerging federal privacy legislation (if enacted)

Federal Privacy Legislation Considerations

Comprehensive federal privacy legislation could preempt state laws like MODPA, simplifying the compliance landscape by establishing uniform national requirements. However, federal legislation faces significant political obstacles, and any enacted law may establish a baseline while allowing states to maintain stricter requirements.

Strategic Implication: Businesses should implement robust state privacy compliance programs without relying on hoped-for federal preemption. Even if federal legislation eventually passes, it will likely require several years, and businesses must comply with current state requirements in the interim.

How Captain Compliance Simplifies MODPA Implementation

Given MODPA’s operational complexity—particularly around sensitive data restrictions, minor protections, and automated consumer rights fulfillment—businesses require sophisticated compliance infrastructure to meet Maryland’s requirements efficiently without consuming disproportionate resources.

Captain Compliance provides purpose-built MODPA compliance software that automates the most resource-intensive compliance obligations:

Automated Data Discovery and Classification: Our platform automatically discovers personal data across your systems and classifies it according to MODPA categories, including identifying sensitive data and data potentially belonging to individuals under 18. This continuous data mapping eliminates manual inventory processes that quickly become outdated.

Streamlined Consumer Rights Management: Captain Compliance provides turnkey request portals enabling Maryland consumers to submit rights requests, automated identity verification preventing fraudulent requests, and intelligent fulfillment workflows that locate responsive data across systems, prepare compliant responses, and track deadlines ensuring timely completion.

Universal Opt-Out Signal Recognition: Our platform automatically detects and honors Global Privacy Control (GPC) and other universal opt-out mechanisms, ensuring your business meets the October 1, 2025 deadline without complex technical implementation. When consumers activate opt-out preferences through browser settings, Captain Compliance automatically applies those preferences across all applicable processing activities—data sales, targeted advertising, and profiling—without requiring manual intervention.

Sensitive Data Processing Controls: Captain Compliance helps businesses identify sensitive data processing activities, assess whether each activity meets MODPA’s “strictly necessary” standard, and implement technical controls preventing sensitive data from flowing into prohibited uses like sales or non-essential processing. Our platform flags sensitive data processing that may not meet strict necessity requirements, enabling proactive remediation before enforcement actions.

Minor Protection Compliance: Our age detection and verification capabilities help businesses identify when consumers may be under 18, automatically segregate minor data from targeted advertising and sales systems, and maintain documentation demonstrating compliance with MODPA’s “should have known” standard. This automated protection eliminates the risk that minor data inadvertently flows into prohibited processing activities.

DPIA Workflow Management: Captain Compliance provides structured data protection impact assessment templates aligned with MODPA requirements, guiding cross-functional teams through risk identification, benefit-risk balancing, and safeguard documentation. Our platform tracks which processing activities require DPIAs, monitors assessment completion, and flags high-risk processing requiring enhanced scrutiny.

Privacy Policy Generation and Management: Our platform generates MODPA-compliant privacy policies based on your actual data processing activities as discovered through automated data mapping. As your processing evolves, Captain Compliance identifies privacy policy updates needed to maintain accuracy and compliance, eliminating the risk that policies become outdated and misleading.

Processor Contract Management: Captain Compliance centralizes vendor and processor documentation, provides MODPA-compliant data processing agreement templates, tracks contract execution and renewal dates, and monitors processor compliance obligations. This centralized management ensures no processor relationships lack proper contractual safeguards.

Fastest Implementation in the Industry: While enterprise privacy platforms require months-long implementation projects, Captain Compliance enables complete MODPA compliance within days through pre-built integrations, intelligent automation, and guaranteed proper setup. With the October 1, 2025 universal opt-out deadline approaching and the April 2027 cure period sunset on the horizon, rapid deployment isn’t merely convenient—it’s essential for businesses managing compliance risk.

Guaranteed Compliance: Captain Compliance doesn’t just provide tools—we guarantee that our platform, properly configured, achieves MODPA compliance. This guarantee reflects our confidence in purpose-built compliance capabilities and provides assurance that your investment delivers genuine risk mitigation rather than compliance theater.

Critical Deadlines: MODPA Compliance Timeline

October 1, 2025:

• MODPA takes effect
• Businesses must recognize universal opt-out mechanisms
• Consumer rights become enforceable
• All MODPA obligations become active

October 1, 2025 – April 1, 2027:

• Cure period during which Attorney General must provide 60-day notice and cure opportunity before enforcement
• Businesses should prioritize achieving full compliance during this grace period

April 1, 2027:

• Cure period sunsets
• Attorney General can pursue immediate enforcement without cure opportunities
• Violations risk immediate penalties up to $10,000 per violation

Strategic Recommendation: Businesses should target full MODPA compliance by Q1 2026—well before the cure period sunsets—providing buffer time to identify and address any implementation gaps before enforcement intensifies.

Common MODPA Compliance Mistakes to Avoid

Based on implementation patterns from other state privacy laws, businesses commonly make several mistakes when approaching new privacy regulations:

Mistake 1: Assuming Compliance with Other State Laws Equals MODPA Compliance

MODPA’s unique provisions—particularly sensitive data restrictions, minor protections extending to age 18, and strict necessity standards—mean businesses compliant with California, Virginia, or Colorado laws are not automatically MODPA compliant. Treat MODPA as a distinct compliance obligation requiring specific assessment and remediation.

Mistake 2: Treating Privacy as Purely Legal Function

MODPA compliance requires technical implementation across systems, applications, and data flows. Legal teams drafting compliant policies cannot achieve compliance without IT and engineering teams implementing technical controls. Cross-functional collaboration between legal, privacy, security, IT, product, and business teams is essential.

Mistake 3: Underestimating Consumer Request Volumes

Many businesses assume consumer rights requests will be rare, only to face overwhelming volumes once consumers learn about their rights and privacy advocacy organizations promote request submission. Design request fulfillment processes assuming significant volume rather than occasional requests, and implement automation preventing request backlogs.

Mistake 4: Focusing on Documentation Over Operational Reality

Creating privacy policies, conducting DPIAs, and executing processor contracts represents important compliance activities, but documentation alone doesn’t achieve compliance. MODPA requires that actual data processing matches documented practices. Ensure technical implementation aligns with policies rather than creating aspirational documentation describing desired rather than actual practices.

Mistake 5: Delaying Compliance Until Deadlines Approach

The October 1, 2025 effective date created urgency, but businesses delaying implementation until weeks before the deadline faced compressed timelines, rushed implementations, and higher error risk. Start compliance programs immediately if you haven’t already, allowing time for thorough assessment, careful planning, and systematic implementation.

Mistake 6: Treating Compliance as One-Time Project

MODPA compliance requires ongoing program maintenance as business activities evolve, new products launch, data processing changes, and vendors are added or modified. Establish governance structures, monitoring processes, and periodic audits ensuring continuous compliance rather than treating compliance as a one-time project completed and forgotten.

Mistake 7: Ignoring the “Should Have Known” Minor Standard

MODPA’s “should have known” standard for identifying minors means businesses cannot simply claim ignorance of consumer age when contextual factors suggest youth. Implement reasonable age detection mechanisms appropriate to your business context, and document the basis for age determinations to demonstrate good faith compliance efforts.

Industry-Specific MODPA Considerations

Certain industries face unique MODPA challenges based on their typical data processing activities and consumer populations:

Healthcare and Wellness

Health and wellness companies processing biometric data, health diagnoses, mental health information, or reproductive health data face MODPA’s strictest requirements. All such data qualifies as sensitive, triggering:

• Strict necessity processing standards
• Absolute prohibition on data sales
• Enhanced security requirements
• Mandatory DPIAs

Wellness apps, fitness tracking platforms, mental health services, fertility apps, and telehealth providers must fundamentally audit data monetization practices and eliminate any sensitive data sales or non-essential processing.

Education Technology

EdTech companies commonly serve populations including individuals under 18, triggering MODPA’s minor protection provisions. These businesses must:

• Eliminate all targeted advertising using student data
• Stop selling student personal data
• Implement age verification or assume populations include minors
• Obtain appropriate school or parental authorizations

The collision between MODPA requirements and EdTech business models dependent on behavioral tracking and advertising monetization creates significant challenges requiring business model evolution.

Retail and E-Commerce

Retailers processing diverse consumer populations likely process minor data and must implement controls preventing targeted advertising to individuals under 18. Location-based retailers using precise geolocation (within 1,750 feet) for store-based marketing must treat such data as sensitive, limiting processing to strictly necessary purposes and prohibiting sales.

Financial Services

While core banking activities benefit from GLBA exemptions, financial institutions’ marketing, product development, and ancillary services often fall outside GLBA coverage. Fintech companies, lending platforms, investment apps, and financial comparison services not covered by GLBA must comply fully with MODPA, including sensitive data restrictions for financial information processing.

Social Media and Online Platforms

Platforms serving age-diverse populations face acute challenges given their business models typically depend on targeted advertising and data monetization. MODPA requires:

• Eliminating targeted advertising for users under 18
• Stopping minor data sales
• Limiting sensitive data processing to strictly necessary purposes
• Providing robust opt-out mechanisms for sales and targeted advertising

Platforms must implement reliable age verification, segregate minor data from advertising systems, and potentially modify revenue models for Maryland users.

Key Takeaways from our Captain Compliance Guide: What Maryland Businesses Must Remember to Stay Compliant

As you develop your MODPA compliance strategy, keep these critical points in mind:

1. MODPA is Not Just Another State Privacy Law: Maryland’s unique provisions around sensitive data, minor protections, and data minimization make it one of the most operationally challenging U.S. privacy laws. Compliance requires specific attention to Maryland’s requirements beyond baseline multi-state privacy programs.

2. Sensitive Data Restrictions Require Fundamental Changes: The prohibition on selling sensitive data and “strictly necessary” processing standard force businesses to audit and often eliminate sensitive data processing activities that other state laws permit with consent. This isn’t a documentation exercise—it requires operational changes.

3. Minor Protections Extend to Age 18: Unlike most state laws protecting children under 13 or 16, MODPA protects individuals under 18 from targeted advertising and data sales. Businesses serving age-diverse populations must implement age detection and data segregation systems preventing prohibited minor data processing.

4. The “Should Have Known” Standard Creates Affirmative Obligations: Businesses cannot simply avoid asking consumer age and claim ignorance. When contextual factors suggest consumers may be under 18, businesses are deemed to “should have known” and must apply minor protections.

5. Consent Cannot Override Structural Prohibitions: MODPA’s approach differs from consent-centric U.S. privacy laws. Explicit consumer consent doesn’t authorize selling sensitive data, processing minor data for targeted advertising, or processing sensitive data beyond strict necessity. Businesses must respect absolute prohibitions regardless of consent status.

6. Universal Opt-Out Deadline is October 1, 2025: Technical implementation of GPC and other universal opt-out mechanisms requires immediate attention. Businesses delaying implementation risk non-compliance from MODPA’s effective date.

7. The Cure Period Creates Implementation Window: Maryland’s 60-day cure period (October 2025 – April 2027) provides businesses opportunity to correct violations before facing penalties. However, waiting until near the cure period sunset increases risk. Prioritize achieving full compliance well before April 2027.

8. Enforcement Will Intensify Post-Cure Period: Once the cure period expires, expect Maryland Attorney General to pursue more aggressive enforcement with substantial penalties for violations. The initial grace period should not create complacency about compliance urgency.

9. Multi-State Operations Require Coordinated Strategy: Businesses operating across multiple states with varying privacy laws must develop coherent strategies—either implementing highest common denominator compliance meeting all states’ requirements, or deploying jurisdiction-specific controls applying appropriate requirements based on consumer location.

10. Compliance is Continuous, Not One-Time: MODPA obligations continue as long as you process Maryland residents’ personal data. Establish ongoing governance, monitoring, training, and audit programs ensuring continuous compliance as business activities evolve.

Maryland Privacy Compliance as Strategic Imperative

The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act represents a significant evolution in U.S. state privacy regulation—one that challenges businesses to fundamentally reconsider how they collect, process, share, and monetize personal data. MODPA’s strict sensitive data restrictions, expanded minor protections, and limitations on consent as universal legitimizing mechanism signal that Maryland views privacy not as consumer preference to be negotiated through consent mechanisms, but as fundamental right requiring strong structural protections.

For Maryland businesses and organizations serving Maryland residents, MODPA compliance is not optional, deferrable, or achievable through superficial policy updates. The law demands operational changes across technology systems, business processes, vendor relationships, and organizational governance. Businesses that approach MODPA as compliance checkbox risk enforcement actions, financial penalties, operational disruptions, and reputational damage in an environment where consumer trust increasingly determines competitive success.

However, businesses that embrace MODPA compliance as opportunity rather than burden position themselves advantageously. Robust privacy programs build consumer trust, differentiate products in crowded markets, reduce data breach risk, and prepare organizations for inevitable additional privacy regulations as the U.S. regulatory landscape continues evolving toward European-style comprehensive data protection frameworks.

The path to MODPA compliance requires systematic assessment of current data practices, honest evaluation of gaps against Maryland’s requirements, strategic planning addressing compliance priorities, and committed implementation of technical and operational remediation. Businesses cannot achieve genuine compliance alone—specialized privacy compliance platforms like Captain Compliance provide essential infrastructure automating resource-intensive compliance obligations while ensuring accuracy, completeness, and continuous maintenance.

With October 1, 2025 marking MODPA’s effective date and the cure period sunsetting April 2027, the time for action is now. Businesses delaying compliance implementation face compressed timelines, rushed deployments, and heightened risk of violations during Maryland’s enforcement ramp-up. Conversely, businesses investing in robust compliance infrastructure today achieve regulatory safety, operational efficiency, and strategic positioning for success in an increasingly privacy-conscious marketplace.

Begin Your MODPA Compliance Journey with Captain Compliance

Captain Compliance provides the fastest, most comprehensive solution for achieving Maryland Online Data Privacy Act compliance. Our platform automates complex compliance obligations data discovery and classification, consumer rights request fulfillment, universal opt-outr recognition, sensitive data controls, minor protection, DPIA workflows, and privacy policy management—enabling businesses to achieve full MODPA compliance in days rather than months.

With guaranteed proper setup, industry-leading implementation speed, and comprehensive feature sets at accessible pricing, Captain Compliance eliminates the barriers that make privacy compliance challenging for businesses of all sizes. Our purpose-built MODPA capabilities ensure your business meets Maryland’s strict requirements while maintaining operational efficiency and scalability as your business grows.

Start Your Free MODPA Compliance Assessment Today →

Don’t wait until enforcement intensifies or the cure period expires. Protect your business, serve your customers responsibly, and position your organization for success in the evolving privacy landscape. Captain Compliance makes Maryland privacy compliance achievable—contact us today to learn how our platform can transform your compliance obligations from burden to competitive advantage.