Vermont committee hears hours of testimony for S.69 age‑appropriate design code; industry warns of legal risk, advocates cite child harm

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development heard three hours of testimony April 8 on S.69, the state's proposed Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC), during which pediatricians, parents and technology policy experts urged new rules to curb social media features they say addict and endanger children while trade groups and platform allies warned the measure could be constitutionally vulnerable and would push companies toward invasive age verification.

Supporters said S.69 focuses on product design and data practices rather than content moderation and would require companies to set the most protective privacy settings by default, limit night notifications and stop design features that foster compulsive use.

"These are health‑harming products," attorney Laura Marquez Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center told the committee, describing litigation her firm filed on behalf of Vermont families and summarizing harms she said stem from platforms' design. "Their own documents say, 'the product in itself has baked into it compulsive use.'"

The bill's defenders included medical and child‑welfare experts who cited research and clinical experience. Dr. Heidi Schumacher, speaking for the Vermont Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Vermont Medical Society, told lawmakers that social media features designed to extend time online correlate with sleep loss, bullying and mental‑health harms. "There is no doubt these platforms can be positive," Schumacher said, "but too often features intentionally designed to keep kids online expose them to dangerous content and unhealthy habits."

Pediatric researcher Dr. Jenny Radesky urged lawmakers to address specific interface decisions: default public profiles, recommendation systems that push minors to adult users, and notifications timed to disrupt sleep. "Design features that capture attention and keep kids engaged are the ones that most increase risk," she said.

Industry witnesses and trade groups argued the bill as written risks overreach and legal challenge. Amy Boss, director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, a trade association representing online platforms, said courts have recently struck or paused similar laws, highlighting a preliminary injunction issued in the Northern District of California against a California AADC-style statute. "By covering any service reasonably likely to be accessed by minors, this bill could regulate most of the internet," she warned, arguing the text's standards such as "reasonably foreseeable emotional distress" are legally vague and invite overbroad censorship.

Chamber of Progress Senior Counsel Brianna January and the Computer & Communications Industry Association's state policy director Megan Stokes likewise told the committee the bill could force platforms into invasive age verification or cause small companies to block minors altogether. "Highly accurate age assurance methods may depend upon collection of new personal data such as facial imagery or government IDs," Stokes said. She urged the committee to align definitions with federal COPPA standards or to wait for clarifying court rulings.

Other witnesses pushed back on the idea that age assurance necessarily requires new data collection. Meg Niorio of the Electronic Privacy Information Center told the committee large platforms already collect extensive signals and that the bill's rulemaking directs the attorney general to prioritize privacy‑protective age‑assurance methods and data minimization. "Age assurance does not require identifying information," Niorio said, "and the bill requires deletion and limits on transfer of any age‑assurance data."

Several witnesses described concrete harms and internal platform research. Josh Golan of Fair Play summarized whistleblower disclosures and platform studies, noting Meta's internal tests showing that hiding visible like counts reduced negative social comparison among younger users but was not adopted because it might reduce engagement. Panelists also cited industry documents and research showing recommendation systems can amplify self‑harm content or expose minors to adult predators.

Attorney General Charity Clark (speaking for the state's law enforcement perspective) said her office has investigated and sued social media companies and offered to shepherd the bill's rulemaking. Clark noted the bill's text was intentionally tailored to reflect lessons from other states and court decisions and said her office would move to implement the law's guidance if enacted. "We do this work because the harms are real," she told the committee.

Committee members asked witnesses about specifics: whether the bill implicitly mandates age verification, the feasibility and bias of biometric methods, how the bill differs from California's statute, and the risk the state will face expensive litigation. Multiple witnesses recommended the AG's rulemaking process spelled out in the bill should begin immediately to provide clarity and that Vermont's effective date could allow time for implementation.

Why it matters: S.69 would change how platforms treat minors by shifting responsibility from parents to platform designers for default privacy, notification timing and recommendation systems. Supporters say it would reduce documented harms; opponents say the measure as drafted is vague and could create privacy tradeoffs or constitutional challenges. The committee did not take a vote at this hearing; members signaled continued interest in amendments and further briefings.

Community context: Testimony included personal accounts from Vermont families, pediatric health data (2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey figures cited by physicians) and litigation references including the California AADC litigation and federal cases cited by NetChoice. Witnesses recommended additional steps, such as requiring standardized platform reporting and funding digital‑literacy and mental‑health resources in schools.

Looking ahead: Committee members plan follow‑up hearings and asked the attorney general to begin rulemaking work promptly if the Legislature advances the bill. Supporters urged the Legislature not to wait for other states' court battles before acting; opponents urged caution and narrower text to minimize legal risk.