Committee reviews draft of 'Daniels Law' to let judges, law enforcement and allied workers block data-broker disclosures

The House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development on March 14 reviewed draft 1.3 of H.342, nicknamed the Daniels Law, a proposed statute that would let certain public officials, court staff, law enforcement and specified victim‑service and crisis workers ask commercial data brokers to stop disclosing protected personal information.

Legislative counsel Rick Sagle told the committee the draft largely retains the bill as introduced and highlights changes in a strike‑all amendment. “This is the Daniels Law Bill,” Sagle said as he opened his walkthrough of the revised text, and he read the federal cross‑reference used to define federal law enforcement officers, citing 18 U.S.C. §115.

The proposal would add federal law enforcement officers to the list of “covered persons,” expand coverage to include employees of the Vermont Human Rights Commission and employees of all state courts, and explicitly include victim advocates, mental‑health crisis workers and embedded crisis specialists working with the State Police, prosecutors’ offices and the Department of Corrections. Sagle said municipal employees are included elsewhere in the definitions and that immediate family members of covered persons remain in the protected class.

Why it matters

The bill would give covered persons a legal path to stop commercial re‑disclosure of certain personally identifying information held by data brokers. Under draft 1.3, a data broker that receives notice must cease disclosing the protected information within 15 days; if the broker continues to disclose after 30 days from notice, the covered person (or assignee) may bring a civil action in superior court. Remedies listed in the draft include actual damages or $1,000 per violation, punitive damages for willful or reckless violations, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. The draft sets an effective date of July 1, 2025.

Major points of the committee discussion

Scope of covered persons: Committee members pressed whether the lists were too broad. Sagle confirmed the draft’s court‑employee language would capture clerks and other court staff and said the judiciary had requested clarifications to the judge definition to include justices, judges and magistrates who maintain a Vermont home address. Members asked whether investigators who work for U.S. attorneys, state’s attorneys, public defenders or sheriff offices would be explicitly covered; Sagle proposed adding investigators and independent contractors as specific categories if the committee wants broader coverage.

Business‑to‑business transactions and unintended consequences: Multiple members raised concerns that the nondisclosure requirement could disrupt legitimate business‑to‑business uses of data. One committee member warned there could be “unintended consequences for business to business transactions,” citing recent litigation and asking for testimony from companies that rely on brokered data. The committee discussed a possible carve‑out for transactions initiated by the covered person and whether the bill’s language sufficiently protects third‑party business flows that are authorized by the individual.

Unauthorized disclosure and breaches: Members asked what happens if a third party or a hacker publicly discloses information the data broker had kept private. Sagle noted that an unauthorized public disclosure would make the information publicly available and therefore outside the draft’s nondisclosure remedy, but committee members suggested adding an explicit unauthorized‑disclosure or breach exception to protect brokers who were themselves victimized and to clarify liability under existing data‑breach notice laws.

Data broker definition and registry: The draft cross‑references a registry and defines a data broker as a business (including nonprofits) that knowingly collects and sells or licenses personal information of consumers with whom it has no direct relationship. The draft excludes governmental agencies and their representatives acting in their official capacity. Committee members flagged that the existing Vermont filing requirement for brokers is light and discussed whether additional security or safe‑harbor language is needed.

Cure period and remedies: The draft lengthened the broker cure period from the earlier version: brokers have 15 days after notice to stop disclosing and may be subject to civil remedies after 30 days from the notice. Sagle described the arrangement as a two‑step approach that offers a short cure opportunity and then a later threshold for civil action.

Other technical items: The committee discussed whether to treat tax parcel identifiers, PO boxes and primary/secondary residences as covered location data; whether independent contractors and vendors who contract with municipalities (for example, crisis workers hired by the Howard Center) should be explicitly included; and whether existing labor‑law reporting (for example, BSEA obligations) should be preserved in the draft. Sagle said the draft retains a cross‑reference to the state data breach/security notice law and to 18 U.S.C. §115 for the federal law enforcement definition.

Voices from the hearing (selected)

Rick Sagle, legislative counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel: “You should have on the web page, draft 1.3 of a proposed committee strike‑all committee amendment to 342… This is the Daniels Law Bill.” Sagle also summarized the statutory cross‑reference for federal officers, reading language from 18 U.S.C. §115.

Vineet (participant): “The nondisclosure piece… prioritizing the nondisclosure only applies to people who’ve specifically said, I don’t wanna be found.”

Pamela (participant): “Has this law been enacted in a couple of states? Has it impinged business to business transactions in those states?”

Where the process goes next

The committee paused the walkthrough to gather additional testimony and invited stakeholders — including businesses that use brokered data and the attorney general’s office, which was scheduled to appear later — to weigh in on the operational and litigation impacts. Sagle and committee members signaled they expect to continue refining the definitions (including whether to add independent contractors and certain investigators), clarify unauthorized‑disclosure and breach treatment, and consider whether the draft’s cure and litigation timetable appropriately balances consumer protection against commercial burdens.

Ending

Committee members repeatedly urged businesses with operational concerns to testify in the Senate or before the committee so lawmakers can see specific backend effects. The committee recessed for lunch and planned to resume consideration of H.342 and take additional testimony in the afternoon.