SEATTLE — A bill aimed at regulating automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras has successfully passed the Washington State Senate with a 40-9 vote.

Sponsored by Sen. Yasmin Trudeau (D-Tacoma), SB 6002 seeks to establish clear guidelines for the use and retention of data collected by ALPR cameras, which are used by law enforcement and other government agencies to scan license plates and gather data.

RELATED | Washington lawmakers push for privacy regulations on Flock cameras

Currently, Washington state lacks specific legislation governing ALPR cameras.

“My goal with this bill has always been about community safety and trust,” Trudeau said. She emphasized the state’s constitutional obligation to protect personal privacy while responding to community concerns about surveillance technology.

The bill aims to balance these concerns by ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary tools to solve serious crimes while protecting individual privacy.

Key provisions of the bill include setting a 21-day retention period for ALPR data, prohibiting its use for immigration enforcement or tracking protected activities such as free speech protests, and banning the placement of ALPR cameras near schools, places of worship, courthouses, or food banks.

RELATED | Use of Flock Safety cameras growing across western Washington, raising privacy concerns

The bill also mandates logs of all data access to monitor compliance and prohibits data sharing with other agencies except in judicial proceedings.

The 21-day retention period, extended from an initially shorter duration based on law enforcement feedback, would be the second-shortest in the nation and the shortest among states with ALPR cameras in operation. “This would be the best and strongest license plate reader law of any state in the nation,” Trudeau stated, highlighting the bill’s provisions for transparency and accountability.

Recent reports have raised concerns about the misuse and unauthorized sharing of ALPR data in Washington state.

Research from the University of Washington revealed that at least eight local law enforcement agencies have shared ALPR data with U.S. Border Patrol, and Border Patrol has accessed data from at least 10 additional agencies without formal agreements.

RELATED | UW report finds police unknowingly shared license plate data with Border Patrol

Additionally, there have been instances of ALPR data being used for purposes such as firearms enforcement and tracking individuals for abortion-related investigations.

The bill now moves to the House of Representatives for further consideration.

Inside the Capitol Building on Tuesday during Ted Sarandos’ appearance before the U.S. Senate’s antitrust subcommittee sat the Monopoly man, complete with a white mustache, top hat and red bowtie. The message, shared by some consumers and large swaths of Hollywood, to lawmakers was unmistakable: Netflix is poised to become an entertainment behemoth if it’s allowed to complete a $82.7 billion deal for Warner Bros. and HBO.

Just ahead of him was a cadre of Warner Bros. Discovery executives and lawyers in attendance to observe Sarandos’ testimony on the impact of the merger. The battle for the company will almost surely be fought in court, but the hearing turned into something of a legal session, with both Democratic and Republican senators pressing the executive on finer points of the acquisition as they relate to antitrust laws. Of specific interest was the market Netflix operates in, who it competes against and concerns that another media megamerger could undercut labor — key issues that may decide the fate of the deal if the Justice Department sues.

Sarandos appeared confident but friendly and answered questions directly, though he hedged when asked whether he would commit to restoring “full residuals.”

“It’s a very complicated answer,” Sarandos replied. His performance saw Netflix stock remain relatively flat as it continues to decline since the announcement of the deal.

He pushed a narrative that Netflix buying Warner Bros. will help save a storied Hollywood studio from the “deep-pocked tech companies trying to run away with the TV business.” Those tech firms, he said, are Netflix’s true competitors, name-checking YouTube at several points during his testimony. “YouTube is not just cat videos anymore,” he explained. “YouTube is TV.”

That message was echoed by Warner Bros. Discovery chief revenue officer Bruce Campbell, who went a step further in arguing that Netflix can’t be pigeonholed to film and TV. “Consumers are experiencing a flood of options, including expanded social media platforms, digital and interactive games, and dozens of other entertainment options that compete for consumers’ interest and attention,” he said in his opening remarks.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), chairman of the subcommittee, immediately zeroed in on the issue, saying that YouTube doesn’t produce original content and that the Google-owned company is “not in the same business.”

“They are a subscription service that has ad free and subscriptions options. It’s the exact same content,” Sarandos replied. “When we talk about competition, we’re competing for the same viewers, the same ad dollars and, sometimes, it’s the exact same programming.” The executive referenced the box office success of indie pic Iron Lung from Mark Fischbach (aka Markiplier) of YouTube gaming fame. The movie made nearly $17.9 million domestically and $21 million globally over the Jan. 30-Feb. 1 weekend.

“I’m struggling to grasp how it’s the same exact content,” Lee replied.

Sarandos didn’t back down, responding that half of all YouTube engagement happens in the living room on the TV. “It’s a zero sum game,” he said. “If you’re watching YouTube, you’re not watching HBO. You’re not watching Netflix.”

If it does get to court, the biggest battleground will be defining the market in which Netflix is a competitor. The company will look to define it as broadly as possible, likely arguing that it competes against the YouTubes and TikToks of the world. By Netflix’s thinking, it’s a competition for time and attention rather than for viewers solely looking to watch movies and TV shows.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, will look to keep the confines of the fight to streaming. A Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery rollup would give the combined company more than 30 percent of the streaming market according to some measures, a key threshold typically viewed as problematic under antitrust law. Still, it’s a far cry from the 50 percent marketshare benchmark that triggers a presumption of monopoly power by the courts.

At several points in the hearing, Sarandos stressed that Netflix has roughly 9 percent of total TV viewing, behind YouTube and Disney. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) challenged the assertion. “That’s defining the market how you want,” he said. “In the streaming market, what percent do you have of the market.”

Sarandos shot back, “For us, that would be a fantasy construct.”

When only including streaming services, Netflix accounts for roughly 19 percent of viewing. That figure would increase to around 21 percent if it’s allowed to purchase Warner Bros.

Another avenue the government could pursue to block the deal is a monopsony theory, or whether the combined company would have too much power over creators and talent. Sarandos and Campbell were the only streaming executives who testified, but they were treated as stand-ins for the entire media and entertainment industries, which have seen significant consolidation over the last two decades, slowly whittling away at labor’s leverage.

In a sharp exchange, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked Sarandos to commit to restoring “full residuals.” Sarandos, appearing slightly flustered, said it’s “very complicated” and that “we prepay,” to which Hawley interjected to say “that’s usually a way of saying no.”

Netflix said in a statement it already pays residuals. “According to the WGA, residuals have reached an all time high of $493.9M (up 5% from ‘20 to ‘23) — streaming accounts for ~45%, of which the lions’ share comes from Netflix,” it said.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) pressed Sarandos, who committed to a 45-day theatrical window, on the fewer paths creators will have for the acquisition of their content with one less company in play.

Sarandos said Netflix has multiple purchasing arms within the company, including for family, comedy and drama content. “You can pitch to all three teams,” he explained. “One may pass and one may take it.” If the deal is greenlit, the executive said buying entities within Warner Bros. and Netflix will remain independent.

Some of the most aggressive questions came from Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who pressed Sarandos and Campbell on the companies “promoting DEI and wokeness” while pointing to content that portray vikings and Cleopatra as Black — content that some conservatives have used as examples of Hollywood pushing a political agenda. “Why in the world would we give the seal of approval to make you the largest behemoth in the planet related to content,” he said. “It seems as though you’ve engaged in not only creating content but the wokest content in the history of the world.”

Sarandos asserted that Netflix caters to all viewers, who are an even 40% split of conservatives and liberals.

One notable person absent from the hearing: Paramount CEO David Ellison, who met with lawmakers privately but declined to make an appearance as he pursues a hostile bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to Booker. The lawmaker said he has “serious concerns” with Paramount’s involvement in the deal due to allegations of “political favoritism” by President Donald Trump.

“Does that strike you as improper,” Booker asked Campbell, referencing Ellison’s meeting with Trump, after which a deal was reached to resolve a lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview with former vice president Kamala Harris.

“It was unusual, yes,” Campbell said.

While Washington Post employees remain in the dark about an impending round of cuts that could dramatically reshape the publication, the man that many hoped could soften or stop the blow, owner Jeff Bezos, has remained silent.

So far, three staff-organized letters sent by Post employees to Bezos imploring him to protect the Post’s robust coverage have gone unanswered.

The first plea went to Bezos on 25 January, when about 60 people signed a letter asking him to protect the company’s foreign news operation, which is rumored to be a major target of cost-cutting.

Two days later, employees sent Bezos a letter asking him to preserve the newspaper’s local coverage, which is also said to be at risk for heavy cuts.

“Should you allow Post management to lay off the local staff, which has been cut in half in the last five years, the effect on this region and the people in it will be immeasurable,” the staffers wrote. “We care deeply about the DC area, and we know you do, too.”

At the end of last week, the publication’s White House reporters sent a letter to Bezos urging him to avoid cutting coverage areas central to its readership. Post staffers have also filmed and posted videos on social media urging Bezos to “#savethepost”.

While Post chief executive Will Lewis has been included on at least one of the emails, the letters have been addressed to Bezos, who some staffers hope might be more persuadable. (Matt Murray, the Post’s top editor, has had private discussions with several Post journalists in recent weeks, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.)

“As the Post’s [owner], Bezos is ultimately making the call on these cuts,” said a Post staffer who signed one of the letters but was not authorized to comment. “He also has enough money to do whatever he chooses here. Reporters across the newsroom want to be sure he understands the magnitude of the devastating cuts that we all expect are coming.”

Emails sent by the Guardian to Bezos and a representative at the company he founded, Amazon, have not been returned. A Post spokesperson declined to comment on the rumored cuts.

The Post staffer described the mood at the paper as “funereal”, with many expecting the cuts to come in the next few days – though the publication still has not acknowledged or confirmed that anything is happening. A rally to protest the cuts has been scheduled for outside the Post’s headquarters on Thursday.

On Monday, the union representing most Post employees called out Bezos in a series of posts on Twitter/X. “If @JeffBezos follows through with his reported plan to decimate the Post’s newsroom, it will be a huge indictment of his supposed business prowess,” the account wrote. “How else to explain his failure to monetize some of the world’s most award-winning, agenda-setting journalism?”

Some Post staffers also noted that Bezos has not yet commented on the 14 January raid of a Post reporter’s home, even though many groups that advocate for journalists decried the government’s tactics as unprecedented and dangerous. Cameron Barr, a former managing editor of the Post, called out Bezos for his silence in a post on LinkedIn, writing: “It’s not just the chest-thumping overreach of the Trump administration that will crush American freedoms – it’s the silence of its enablers.”

Amazon and Bezos have also faced criticism for spending approximately $75m to acquire and promote a documentary about Melania Trump – particularly after Bezos faced accusations of cozying up to Trump by killing the Post’s planned endorsement last fall of Kamala Harris for president.

Glenn Kessler, who ended a 27-year-long career at the Post last year, expressed cautious optimism about the campaign to reach Bezos. “That kind of pushback might have an impact,” he said. “We don’t really know until we see what the actual result is.”

Kessler said he and a few other reporters had lunch with Bezos, who purchased the paper in 2013, after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. “He wanted to hear war stories and that sort of thing,” he recalled. “He was quite interested in what people did. He had this great laugh, and he seemed quite engaged.”

But Kessler was heavily critical of Bezos’s handling of the Harris endorsement and his decision to refocus the section’s opinion page to prioritize writing “in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets”, decisions that led to the resignation of a top editor and quickly cost the Post hundreds of thousands of subscribers.

“Even before these cuts, you can question the quality of Bezos’s stewardship,” Kessler said. “The sense I get is that he’s not nearly as engaged with the Post as he once was. If you’re not really that engaged or invested in the thing that you own, the easiest thing to do is to cut back the money you’re losing on it.”

“I think it’s hard to overestimate how excited the journalists and editors were when Bezos bought the company,” recalled political journalist Chris Cillizza, who worked at the Post from 2006 to 2017. “The richest man in the world buys the company and he says all the right things. I think people were slower to see that something had changed because they wanted to believe so badly that the original sense we had of Bezos was it.”

Cillizza remembered being skeptical when Bezos said he intended the Post to be profitable. “I remember thinking to myself even then, in 2013: ‘Man, that’s going to be tough.’”

While Bezos has stayed silent about potential cuts to the Post, and ignored an effort by the union last year to get him to visit the newspaper, he was more visibly engaged with one of his other companies on Monday, the spaceflight startup Blue Origin.

Bezos was on hand to meet secretary of defense Pete Hegseth, who last November called the Post’s reporting “fake news”, during a visit to the company’s facility in Florida. “Great to see you,” Bezos told Hegseth. “Welcome – it’s an honor to have you.”