Austin, Texas – In a recent lawsuit filed against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has accused the agency of illegally collecting data from every American who invests in the stock market. The lawsuit alleges that the SEC’s “Consolidated Audit Trail” (CAT) program is gathering vast amounts of personally identifiable information without proper authorization or oversight.
The CAT program, initiated during the Obama administration with bipartisan support, has raised concerns about privacy and constitutional rights. The NCLA argues that the program, funded by fees collected from investment transactions, poses a significant risk to Americans’ financial data.
According to Peggy Little, NCLA’s senior litigation counsel, the SEC’s actions violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable government search and seizure. The lawsuit claims that the SEC’s surveillance powers extend beyond what is lawful and puts the financial information of American investors at risk.
The lawsuit, filed in the district court for the Western District of Texas, describes CAT as “the greatest government mandated mass collection of personal financial data in United States history.” The NCLA argues that modern surveillance tools enable the SEC to track individuals’ every financial move, raising concerns about privacy and civil liberties.
Former Attorney General William Barr has also weighed in on the issue, highlighting the importance of the Fourth Amendment in safeguarding privacy rights. Barr emphasizes that government agencies like the SEC should not have unchecked powers to gather personal information without proper oversight.
The SEC, in response to the lawsuit, defended its regulatory responsibilities, stating that the agency operates within its legal authorities. The case has sparked a debate on the balance between government oversight and individual privacy rights in the financial sector.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of the lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for how the SEC conducts its monitoring activities. The outcome of the case may set a precedent for the limits of government surveillance in the realm of financial transactions.