State Legislation Emerging on Agriculture Data Regulation

The farm of 2036 will look dramatically different from the farm of 2026. Along with crops and livestock, farmers are harvesting another asset into their portfolio; their data. As agriculture data governance continues to evolve, the information generated by small to large farming operations is emerging with significant economic value. Until recently, however, questions surrounding the ownership, control, and commercialization of that data have been guided by contractual provisions and industry transparency initiatives like Ag Data Transparent (“ADT”). Nebraska’s first of its kind Agricultural Data Privacy Act marked a distinctive shift by bringing ag data issues into state law.

ADT is built around a set of “Core Principles,” including Ownership, Control, Collection, Transparency, Choice, Portability, Disclosure and Sale Limitation, Data Retention and Deletion, Termination, and Security. Thanks to the recent Nebraska bill, as well as a number of other proposed bills, these Core Principles are increasingly appearing in state agricultural data legislation. Here is an overview recent bills that have been introduced.

Montana

Montana was one of the earliest states to address agricultural data governance when HB966 was introduced during the 2023 session. Montana illustrates early legislative efforts encouraging transparency surrounding commercial agricultural data collection. The bill reflects several concepts promoted by ADT, including disclosures such as "the nature and purpose of data collection” and transparency/choice as allowing customers to opt out of any data collection procedures.

This proposed bill is unique compared to the other state bills in that companies commercially collecting agriculture data would be required to pay $25 to the Montana Department of Agriculture to submit aggregated datasets into their database. Unlike the other states, the bill would also not establish farmer ownership rights, express consent, portability, deletion, or any penalties for violations. This bill served primarily as an early transparency proposal rather than a comprehensive agricultural data ownership framework. Although limited in scope, Montana demonstrates that concepts shown in ADT's framework had begun appearing in state legislative proposals even before Nebraska codified many of these principles into law.

Nebraska

Building on the Core Principles of ADT, Nebraska, as a first mover, took a leap of statutory faith when Governor Jim Pillen signed LB525 into law on April 14, 2026. This bill passed through Nebraska’s Legislature by a unanimous vote of 49-0.

Nebraska’s LB525 codifies many of ADT's voluntary principles, making them legally enforceable for the first time. Among the most important are farmer ownership, control, transparency, choice, and data security. The law emphasizes that farmers should possess rights regarding data generated from their farms, land, devices, or equipment. Further, the law reflects ADT’s focus on farmer consent by requiring express written authorization before agriculture data may be sold and by requiring clear contractual disclosures regarding sales. Similarly, controllers' and possessors' clear takeaway from the law is that farmers retain ownership and control their data, granting only limited nonexclusive rights to use data for the purpose of providing services, maintaining equipment, or performing authorized data processing. This means that companies cannot sell farmers’ data, nor can they subtly insert contractual provisions that attempt to waive or limit the statute’s protections. At the law’s core, companies must maintain reasonable safeguards to protect agriculture data.

The enforcement authority rests entirely under the discretion of the Nebraska Attorney General. The AG’s office may seek injunctive relief and recover civil penalties of $1,000 for each separate violation. However, the law does not create a private cause of action, meaning farmers cannot sue directly under the law. For these violations, the AG’s office must provide a written notice identifying the alleged provision that was violated. The company is ultimately allowed 45 days to cure before any civil penalties may be pursued.

Colorado

In February of 2026, Colorado proposed House Bill 26-1270, the Agricultural Data Ownership and Market Competition Act. Where Nebraska codifies ADT's framework, Colorado took this concept further. The language used mirrors several aspects of the Nebraska bill, which are derived from ADT; establishing ownership and control, transparency, and disclosure. However, Colorado goes a step further by distinguishing raw and transformed agricultural data. Raw data consists of the original information generated by a farming operation, for example: yield data, planting records, soil tests, or equipment logs. Transformed data is created when that information is analyzed, combined with other datasets, or processed into new insights, software, or predictive models. Ultimately, the proposal would grant farmers the right to collect their data, obtain copies in a portable format, and request deletion of data.

The bill would also impose stringent obligations on data service providers that collect, process, or commercialize agricultural data. Such providers would be required to enable farmers access to their data, disclose how the data is used, and even provide fair market value compensation when data is commercialized. Additionally, companies would not be able to rely on standard terms of service or clickwrap agreements to waive farmer ownership rights without express, informed, written consent.

Colorado’s proposed bill contains one of the most stringent enforcement frameworks among any of the bills proposed at a state level to date. Violations may be enforced by the attorney general, district attorneys, and the Colorado department of agriculture. Data service providers that violate the bill may face civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Plus, farmers or agriculture data owners, would have a private cause of action, allowing them to bring suit for damages up to $10,000 per violation, as well as injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs.

Missouri

Similar to Colorado, in February of 2026, Missouri presented House Bill 3409, the Agricultural Data Ownership and Market Competition Act. Missouri’s proposal reads like a legislative translation of ADT’s core principles. Farmer’s ownership and control become a “data owner” holding ownership rights, transparency appears as “clear, conspicuous, and complete disclosure” adding “express, informed, written consent,” and portability as “machine-readable format upon request.” However, unlike Nebraska and ADT, Missouri does not reference reasonable security safeguards for agriculture data. Similar to Colorado, companies cannot hide clickwrap agreements emphasizing the importance of transparency, informed, written consent for agreements.

The bill would require data collecting companies to disclose what data they collected, how it would be used, who would receive it, and the commercial value when known. This proposal would protect a farmer’s ability to share or monetize ag data receiving fair compensation, and disclosure of transactions. The bill also sought to limit individual companies to a maximum of 25% of the agriculture data within a Missouri county to prevent excessive market concentration.

Missouri’s enforcement provisions also resemble Colorado’s. Violations would result in civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation with each day of continuing violation treated as a separate offense. Farmers would also have a private cause of action with up to $10,000 in damages per violation, attorneys’ fees, and costs. While HB3409 has not yet become law, the bill is a good example of how state proposals are expanding as a result of ADT’s initiatives.

Iowa

In April of 2026, the Iowa legislature considered House File 2763 and later adopted amendment H8407 adding agriculture data provisions to the bill. Iowa has taken a unique approach by considering two agricultural technology proposals within this same piece of legislation. In addition to the agriculture equipment right to repair provisions, the proposal would create the Iowa Agricultural Data Ownership and Market Competition Act. This bill resembles the other states and reflects many of ADT’s core principles by emphasizing farmer ownership rights for data and establishing rules governing commercialization. Like Colorado, the proposal distinguishes raw and transformed agricultural data, grants farmers the ability to collect, control, and also monetize their data, while limiting companies’ bandwidth to obtain these rights without express, informed consent.

H-8407 would also take ADT’s principles a step further and require companies  commercializing agricultural data to compensate farmers for data-generating value, and refrain from restricting farmers from profiting off their data through third parties. Violations would be enforceable by the Iowa Attorney General under the state's consumer protection laws, with civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. The proposal also creates a private cause of action, allowing producers to seek damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs.

The next chapter in agricultural data governance

Nebraska's Agricultural Data Privacy Act marked the first time a state codified many of the principles long promoted by Ag Data Transparent. Although no other state has codified similar legislation to date, the proposals introduced in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and Iowa demonstrate that agricultural data governance has become a hot topic of discussion among state legislatures.

While each proposal takes a different approach, a common theme has emerged. Legislators are increasingly considering whether farmers should own and have a voice over their agricultural data. Additionally, what obligations companies should have when collecting and commercializing that data, and what penalties should exist when those obligations are violated. Some proposals, like Colorado, Missouri, and Iowa would significantly expand farmer rights through portability, deletion, compensation, and private enforcement. Others, such as Montana and parts of Iowa, would focus on more limited issues, including transparency, farmer choice, or equipment-related data access.

Whether these proposals in state legislatures become law remains an open question. What is becoming clear, however, is that many state legislatures are no longer asking if or why agricultural data deserves protection, but how that protection should be structured. As those conversations continue, the Core Principles first advanced through ADT serve as the blueprint for defining farmer rights, company obligations, and agricultural data governance across the country.

Author:  Ethan Aspy, August 4, 2026.  Ethan Aspy is a law student at Capital University and summer law clerk for Janzen Schroeder Agricultural Law LLC. 

Contact: Inquiries about this article should contact Todd Janzen, Ag Data Transparent administrator, at janzen@agdatatransparent.com.