On April 14, 2026, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed LB 525 into law. LB 525, known as the Agricultural Data Privacy Act, establishes certain protections for agricultural data generated by Nebraska farmers. This bill marks the first state law to establish ownership rights and safeguards for the wide array of data generated by farmers during their operations. This article will discuss the issues surrounding agricultural data, the Nebraska law, and similar legislation by other states.
Background
The agricultural industry, like many others, has become increasingly reliant on modern technology. As that reliance on technology increases, the amount of data being generated by farmers likewise increases. That data is known generally as “agricultural data.” Agriculture is a broad industry and agricultural data refers to many often-interconnected records and statistics. As data generated by farmers becomes increasingly complex and prevalent, one question has frequently been posed: Who owns this data? Before discussing Nebraska’s answer to that question, some context is necessary.
To better understand the issues surrounding agricultural data, consider precision agriculture. Precision agriculture, generally, refers to the use of new technologies like drones, GPS mapping, and soil analysis in farming operations. These new technologies generate more precise information for farmers, which in theory allows for increased productivity and efficiency on farms so long as the data is accurately compiled and analyzed. However, farmers may not be the only party with access to the data being generated through precision agriculture practices. In fact, user agreements with the companies who manufactured such technology may convey certain ownership rights over the data being generated. This has created some privacy concerns, which in turn have led to calls for state laws clarifying who owns the data being generated on farms.
Some common examples of agricultural data may assist in understanding the term. One example is what is known as agronomic data. Agronomic data refers to data relating to soil management and crop production. This includes information relating to fields, planting activity, crop type, pest management, and fertilizer usage. Climate and weather data is another common example, including precipitation amounts, temperature, and wind speeds. Land data covers the land itself and includes fertility of soils, elevation, and topography among others. For producers in the livestock industry, livestock data includes genetic information, feed consumption information, and animal identification practices. Finally, there is management data. Management encompasses all information relating to the management of a producer’s business. Data such as finances, taxes, and employment records are considered management data. Management data is generated by any agricultural producer, regardless of their specific industry.
Understanding what agricultural data means is necessary to understand why it has become an important issue for producers, interest groups, and state legislators. Agricultural data is generated by producers through their more modern equipment, but it is collected and stored by agricultural technology providers (ATPs). ATP is the general term used to describe an organization or business that manufactures technology used in agriculture, such as John Deere. When a farmer purchases a piece of agricultural technology, they will often be required to sign some type of agreement, like a term of service agreement. Often, these agreements will contain clauses granting the ATP ownership over the raw data generated by the producer. With that ownership, ATPs may be permitted to use the data, aggregate it with other similar farming operations, or sell it to a third party. When purchasing equipment from ATPs, farmers may not completely understand the agreements being entered into, which may cause them to unknowingly transfer ownership of sensitive data they have generated. This has prompted state legislators to begin creating laws that seek to clarify who owns the data being generated by farmers.
Nebraska’s Agricultural Data Privacy Act
According to its text, Nebraska’s Agricultural Data Privacy Act is intended to protect the “economic value” of agricultural data and “the autonomy of Nebraska’s producers.” To accomplish this, the act provides clear guidelines for the sale of agricultural data by ATPs, establishes a consent requirement, and imposes penalties on violators of the act. Before discussing the specific provisions, it is important to discuss which data, entities, and transactions the law applies to.
What Data is Covered?
In the Agricultural Data Privacy Act, Nebraska defines agricultural data as data that is “linked to an identified or identifiable agricultural producer, farm, parcel, device, or equipment.” In addition to the above-mentioned examples, the act also applies to sustainability data. Sustainability data is defined as “information regarding greenhouse-gas emissions, carbon sequestration, and water-quality impact, and any other environmental or conservation practice used to verify sustainability data.”
Conversely, the act does not cover aggregated data, derived data, and data made available to the general public. Aggregated data, which is agricultural data that has been combined with other forms of data and summarized, is not covered. An example of aggregated data would be the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s Census of Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture combines data on land use, ownership, income, production practices, and other types of agricultural data to summarize and analyze all agricultural operations in the United States. Aggregated data is not covered because it cannot be “reasonably linked to an identified or identifiable agricultural producer, farm, parcel, device, or equipment.” Because the data cannot be linked to a specific producer, there is less of a privacy concern. Additionally, the act does not cover derived data. Derived data is defined as “data that has been significantly modified, processed, analyzed, or compiled.” The act cites agronomic insights, reports, and predictive models as examples of derived data.
Who is Covered?
In the most basic terms, the Agricultural Data Privacy Act seeks to protect farmers and regulate ATPs. Different terms are used to describe these parties, but the meaning is the same. More specifically, the act uses the terms agricultural producer, controller, and processor. An agricultural producer is defined as “the person that is the owner, lessee, or renter of the farm, livestock, land, device, or equipment from which agricultural data originates.” A controller is “a person or entity that, alone or jointly with others, determines the purpose and means of processing agricultural data.” A processor is defined as “a person who or entity that processes agricultural data on behalf of a controller.” The act also covers “affiliates” of the abovementioned processors and controllers. The act defines “affiliate” as “a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a controller or processor.”
What Does It Do?
The Agricultural Data Privacy Act contains provisions which address the primary concerns associated with agricultural data. First, the act clarifies who owns the data being generated by farmers. Under the act, “an agricultural producer is the owner, and has control, of the agricultural data that originates from the farm, land, device, or equipment of such agricultural producer.” LB 525, Sec. 4(2), 109th Legis. (Ne. 2026). This language clearly and definitively establishes that farmers own the data they generate, which answers one of the major questions associated with agricultural data. However, the act also establishes that ATPs maintain “a nonexclusive right of control” over agricultural data generated by farmers. This “nonexclusive right of control” is defined as being “solely for the purpose of providing services, maintaining equipment, or performing data processing authorized by the agricultural producer.” Notably, this nonexclusive right of control does not include the right to sell agricultural data, which has been a privacy concern for many producers.
In order to sell the agricultural data generated by a farmer, the Agricultural Data Privacy Act requires ATPs to obtain the farmer’s express written consent. Beginning in 2027, any contract or agreement which involves the collection or processing of agricultural data must contain a provision which states that the sale of such data is prohibited without express written consent. Any agreement which does not contain that language shall be considered contrary to public policy, void, and unenforceable. The act goes on to clarify how express written consent must be obtained. Under the act, “written consent for the sale of agricultural data shall be obtained through a clear and conspicuous disclosure that is separate from the primary terms of service or data use agreement.” LB 525, Sec. 5(2), 109th Legis. (Ne. 2026). Absent this express written consent, ATPs are prohibited from engaging in the sale of agricultural data generated by farmers. This addresses one of the major privacy concerns associated with agricultural data, which is the sale of data to third parties. However, the act contains further language intended to protect the privacy of Nebraska farmers.
Next, the Agricultural Data Privacy Act contains a provision which imposes guidelines on ATPs in possession of a farmer’s agricultural data. Under the act, any controller or processor who is either “in custody or possession” of a producer’s data is subject to additional security requirements. More specifically, those controllers and producers must “establish, implement, and maintain reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of such agricultural data.” LB 525, Sec. 7(1), 109th Legis. (Ne. 2026). The act does not provide much detail on what exactly these practices should look like, but this provision further evinces Nebraska’s intent to establish protections for agricultural data.
Finally, the act outlines penalties for violators of the statute. If a controller or processor is alleged to have violated the provisions of the act, Nebraska’s Attorney General will provide the controller or processor with written notice that identifies the alleged violations. Once such notice is received, the controller or processor is given forty-five days to cure the alleged violation and provide the Attorney General with a statement that states the alleged violations have been cured and that the controller or processor will “refrain from further violations.” However, this “cure-period” shall not be available for controllers or processors who sell a farmer’s agricultural data without their written consent. When a controller or processor has violated the provisions of the act and failed to cure (if applicable) those violations, the Attorney General is permitted to bring legal action. Through that action, the Attorney General may seek injunctive relief and recover a civil penalty of $1,000 for each alleged violation.
Nebraska’s Agricultural Data Privacy Act is the first piece of legislation aimed at protecting agricultural data to become law. The act establishes ownership of data for the farmers who generate it, regulates the agreements between farmers and ATPs, and requires the adoption of security practices to further protect farmers’ data. The Agricultural Data Privacy Act may be the first legislation of its kind to be officially adopted, but other states have already begun the process of implementing similar legislation.
Similar State Efforts
Missouri legislators have introduced HB No. 3409, which is called the Missouri Agricultural Data Ownership and Market Competition Act. Missouri’s bill similarly would establish ownership rights for the data generated by farmers. Under the Missouri bill, farmers would own the raw data generated through crop production, livestock operations, and their farm equipment, provided they owned or leased the equipment at the time it was generated. Unlike the Nebraska legislation, farmers would possess an ownership interest in both their raw data and “transformed data.” Missouri’s bill defines transformed data as “agricultural data that has been processed, analyzed, aggregated, or otherwise transformed.” As noted above, Nebraska’s law contains an exception for aggregated data. Under the Missouri bill, farmers would have an ownership interest in transformed data “proportional to the contribution of their raw data to the transformation.” This distinguishes the Missouri bill from Nebraska’s similar agricultural data bill.
Missouri’s agricultural data ownership bill would also require express and written consent from farmers before their ownership rights may be transferred, like the Nebraska law. Additionally, the Missouri bill would require data collectors to disclose to farmers what type of data is being collected, the purposes for which the data will be used, and the third parties with whom the data has been or may be shared. Similar to Nebraska’s law, the Missouri bill would impose civil penalties on violators of the act. The Missouri bill contains additional provisions not discussed above; however it is important to note that the bill has not yet been signed into law. As of the time of writing, the bill has been introduced but no formal votes have occurred.
Iowa has introduced H8407, the “Iowa Agricultural Data and Market Competition Act,” as an amendment to a larger piece of legislation concerning repair restrictions in farm equipment. Like Missouri’s bill, Iowa distinguishes between raw and transformed agricultural data. Unlike Missouri’s bill, Iowa mandates that farmers maintain “full ownership rights” in the transformed agricultural data. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to copyright, reproduce, and sell the transformed agricultural data. Similar to both Nebraska and Missouri, Iowa’s bill would require express, informed, written consent to transfer a farmer’s ownership interest in data they have generated. Iowa’s agricultural data bill has passed a House vote but has not yet been signed into law.
Conclusion
As discussed throughout this article, the question of who owns the agricultural data generated by farmers has become a prominent issue. States are now beginning to weigh in on this issue through legislative efforts, but only Nebraska has currently enacted an agricultural data ownership law. Missouri and Iowa are attempting to pass similar legislation, but those bills have not yet become law. Whether more states will join Nebraska remains to be seen, but the questions surrounding agricultural data are unlikely to cease any time soon. With that in mind, farmers across all industries should be aware of legislative efforts to clarify agricultural data ownership rights. Privacy issues surrounding data ownership have impacted nearly every industry and agriculture is no exception. For updates on new developments in the agricultural data space, be on the lookout for future NALC resources.