Gov. Jerry Brown (D) must decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign or veto a pair of bills meant to protect employee and student social media accounts from the perceived problem of overly curious employers and colleges.

A.B. 1844 would limit employer access to employee and job applicant personal social media accounts. The bill is similar to recently enacted laws in Maryland and Illinois, which restrict employer requests that passwords or other account information be divulged.

A companion bill, S.B. 1349, seeks to prevent school administrators from requiring students or applicants to hand over their social media account information. Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) signed into law a similar prohibition July 20.

The password protection bills have been overwhelmingly popular in legislatures where the measures have come up for a vote, often passing unanimously or by very large majorities. The vote tallies in the California Assembly and Senate were no different.

Nonetheless, groups representing financial services corporations lobbied against the California bill that would deal with workplaces. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) argued the bill might clash with FINRA rules requiring securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications.

SIFMA, in a June 22 letter, said the organization wanted "to be clear that the securities industry has no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use. The problem, however, is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity."

FINRA suggested in its letter that California exempt financial institutions, noting that other states had considered such exemptions in similar bills. For example, Maryland's first-in-the-nation bill provides it does not prevent an employer "from conducting an investigation for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable securities or financial law, or regulatory requirements; . . . ."

That argument did not carry the day in California. A legislative analysis argued that a carve-out for the securities industry was not necessary, and the final version of A.B. 1844 contains no such exemption.

Copyright 2012, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.