Vermont committee advances H.342 after Attorney General backs narrower data-broker limits

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Feb. 14 discussed H.342, legislation intended to let specified “sensitive” individuals opt out of commercial data‑broker marketplaces. Attorney General Jerry Clark testified by Zoom and said he supports the bill’s narrower focus on data brokers while urging caution about some enforcement and definitional changes.

Attorney General Jerry Clark said data brokers operate without a direct relationship with the individuals whose information they buy and sell, and he called the third‑party marketplace a distinct regulatory problem. "Our data belongs to us and we should have a right to control our data," Clark said. He told the committee the bill appears defensible in court, citing a New Jersey court decision on a similar statute as a point of comparison.

Clark warned the committee that the attorney general’s office represents the State of Vermont, not individual private plaintiffs. "If there's a bad actor repeatedly violating a law, that may be in a different category," he said, but added that his office typically focuses on large‑scale harms rather than single‑person disputes because of limited bandwidth.

Committee members raised several technical concerns during more than an hour of discussion, including: whether to expand the bill beyond third‑party data brokers to first‑party businesses; whether to fold remedies into the state's Consumer Protection Act; and how to limit potential frivolous or weaponized private lawsuits. One compromise discussed would delay the private right of action’s effective start date to Jan. 1, 2026, and to allow a notice-and-cure window (committee discussion referenced a commonly proposed 30‑day notice period) so companies could respond before facing lawsuits.

Clark said he favored keeping the bill targeted to the existing statutory definition of data brokers, which was created previously when Vermont adopted a data broker registry. "Data brokers are really unique because they are this third party… I don't know why we would include those first party people," he said, arguing that businesses with direct customer relationships operate under different market pressures.

Committee members also discussed safe‑harbor and procedural language to reduce the risk that the law could be used to bring frivolous suits that would unduly burden small or legitimate businesses. Witnesses and committee members referenced industry testimony urging reasonable implementation timelines and technical compliance windows; Garrett Rogers was named in committee discussion as a witness who had offered follow‑up material on a safe‑harbor concept.

Members debated whether to advance the bill with the remaining technical issues noted and allow the Senate to consider changes, or to wait for revised draft language that addresses business‑to‑business concerns and the private right of action. Several members argued that moving a version of the bill forward would not foreclose later amendments, because Senate changes would return to the House if adopted. Others said they preferred clearer assurances before release.

No formal vote was recorded in the transcript. Committee members agreed to further drafting work with legislative counsel and signaled an intent to hold a roll call or “strong poll” before sending the bill out of committee.

The committee’s conversation focused on balancing faster protective measures for covered individuals against implementation burdens and litigation risks for businesses; Clark recommended keeping enforcement options available to individuals while acknowledging his office could bring statewide actions in egregious cases.