Senate Institutions committee advances House-amended S.69, an "age-appropriate design" bill for social media

At a Senate Institutions Committee meeting Wednesday, May 28, the committee took a straw poll to advance the House-amended S.69, the Age-Appropriate Design Code, aimed at curbing risks social media platforms pose to children by requiring defaults and behind-the-scenes design changes.

The bill’s House sponsor, Representative Tony Mickles, told the committee S.69 is intended to “put some protections on the children” by focusing on algorithmic design and default privacy settings rather than regulating content. He said the bill would tell platforms to default to the most private settings for child accounts and to restrict unsolicited adult contact with minors unless the adult can verify a prior relationship. “If that adult does not know the child, they should not be able to have access,” Mickles said.

The measure, as discussed in committee, would apply to social media companies and is structured to avoid First Amendment content regulation by targeting features and algorithms rather than on-platform speech. Mickles said he heard concerns about possible business impacts but that no Vermont businesses provided testimony in his committee; some national advocacy and trade groups raised First Amendment reservations during prior hearings.

Richard Segal of the Office of Legislative Counsel briefed the panel on timing and rulemaking. He said the bill’s effective date language in the House-amended draft needs clarification but that the Attorney General’s office could begin rulemaking earlier than the act’s operative date if the law so directs. Segal noted the committee’s draft had contemplated rulemaking authority beginning July 1, 2025, and that the statute itself sets the act’s operative date for Jan. 1, 2027. “In my legal opinion, the AG can begin rulemaking whenever they want,” Segal said, while advising the committee to ensure the effective-date language is consistent.

Committee members asked about implementation burdens for smaller companies and about thresholds and exemptions. Mickles said the House had removed threshold exemptions that the Senate version had considered, explaining he was cautious about carving out exemptions that might raise free-speech concerns. He also said the bill allows children to change settings and initiate contacts themselves: a child who initiates a friend request would be permitted to connect.

After discussion, the committee conducted a voice straw poll; members reported the result as 3-0-2 in favor of advancing the bill, and the chair said the committee would report it onward. The committee did not record a formal roll-call vote on the record during the meeting; the 3-0-2 tally was described in the meeting as a straw poll.

The bill as discussed would require the Attorney General to adopt implementing rules before the act becomes operative and leave room for public and business input during rulemaking. No formal amendments were adopted at this meeting.

Background: supporters cited studies and anecdotal concerns about social media harms to children, including addiction and risks from contact with unknown adults; opponents at earlier hearings raised First Amendment and implementation concerns. The committee’s next procedural steps are to report the bill to the floor following standard committee reporting procedures.