Vermont committee reviews H.342 to let judges, law enforcement and others force data brokers to stop disclosing home contact information

On April 16, members of the Vermont House Judiciary committee reviewed H.342, a bill that would let judges, prosecutors, law‑enforcement officers, specified court and social‑service employees and their immediate family members request that data brokers stop disclosing protected personal information such as home address, home phone, email address, Social Security and driver’s‑license numbers, and license‑plate information.

The bill, described to the committee as modeled on laws in other states and on recent New Jersey legislation, would require a covered person (or an authorized agent) to send a prescribed notice to a data broker. If the broker continues to disclose the listed information more than 15 days after receiving that notice, the attorney general may investigate and seek civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation; the covered person may bring a private civil action for liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation plus attorney’s fees, with potential punitive damages for willful or reckless conduct.

Representative Priestley, who presented the bill in committee, said the measure grew from concerns about retaliation against public officials and court personnel and that the aim was to reduce near‑term risks to people in high‑risk positions. “I went on Spokeo for 95¢ and bought…access to everybody’s home addresses,” Representative Priestley said, illustrating how easily some personal data can be purchased online. Committee members credited a New Jersey case and related legislation as part of the bill’s inspiration.

Supporters described the bill in three main parts: who is covered, what counts as protected information, and how enforcement would work. The committee briefing set out an expansive “covered person” definition that includes current and former judges, state and federal law‑enforcement officers who work or reside in Vermont, prosecutors, public defenders, probation and parole staff, employees of the Department for Children and Families and Department of Corrections, Vermont Human Rights Commission staff, court employees, certain crisis mental‑health workers and, notably, immediate family members of those people. The bill also makes clear that “cease disclosure” does not require deletion of underlying records; it requires data brokers to stop further disclosure or redisclosure.

On enforcement, committee presenters said the attorney general’s office would publish a form on its website. That form would let covered people report failures by data brokers; the AG could then open investigations and pursue civil penalties. If a covered person files a civil suit, the bill provides a safe harbor for data brokers that stop disclosing within 15 days after being served in the lawsuit: in that case liability to the plaintiff would generally be limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. Presenters said the private right of action would be available after the AG’s initial enforcement window; the committee also discussed a 90‑day window for the AG to publish its form and a delayed start date for private suits so brokers can come into compliance.

Witnesses and committee members pressed several practical issues. Jeff Jokish, identified in testimony as a researcher with a commercial database of brokers, told the committee he maintains roughly “8,600 data brokers internationally around the world.” Committee members and witnesses warned that most brokers are not household names, that only a small number of states maintain broker registries, and that it would often fall to the covered person or a third‑party vendor to identify and contact dozens or hundreds of brokers to request nondisclosure.

Law‑professor testimony and committee discussion emphasized tradeoffs. Lauren Schultz, a law professor who testified for the committee, argued for the value of private enforcement in privacy law. Other members raised concerns about overly broad amendments that, in their view, would sweep in public records or raise First Amendment questions; presenters said those issues prompted a narrower approach focused on commercial data brokers rather than all possible online disclosures.

Committee members repeatedly flagged operational questions: how a notice is deemed “received” (email inbox, registered agent, or other), how a covered person would find a broker’s contact information, and whether an AG registry or Secretary of State contact list should be required. Presenters described existing options — software vendors and third parties that file opt‑outs or sue on contingency — and said the bill anticipates some market solutions while also giving the attorney general authority to coordinate enforcement information.

The bill also directs the Agency of Digital Services (ADS), in consultation with the attorney general, secretary of state and other agencies, to study how a similar nondisclosure requirement would affect state and local public agencies. The committee was told the study would examine fiscal and staffing impacts, statutory changes needed, and feasibility; presenters said the study report would be due Dec. 1, 2026.

Committee members and presenters emphasized limits and exceptions in the draft: disclosures made with the covered person’s express authorization (for example, to facilitate a transaction such as a mortgage application), disclosures incidental to a one‑time sale of business assets, and disclosures by governmental agencies in some contexts are carved out. Presenters also noted that “cease disclosure” does not require deletion of information and that full removal from the Internet is unlikely.

The committee did not record any formal vote on the bill during the hearing. Members asked for additional testimony and technical detail about registries, notice mechanics and the interaction of state and federal protections. Representatives said they expect further markups and outside testimony before final committee action.

The committee hearing continues to gather testimony and technical input; the presenters said the attorney general’s office would provide the notice form and the ADS study and that the committee expects to revisit operational details in future markup sessions.