Senate committee hears industry objections and legal support for S.69 age-appropriate design code

The Vermont Senate Committee on Information Technology and Institutions on Feb. 26 heard competing testimony on S.69, the Age Appropriate Design Code Act, with industry representatives urging an exemption for satellite-based streaming services and legal advocates and the attorney general’s office defending the bill’s design-focused, constitutionally vetted approach.

The bill’s supporters told the committee the measure targets platform design and upstream features that create risk for children rather than specific speech, while industry witnesses argued some streaming services do not present the user-generated-content risks the bill aims to address.

Damon Stewart, an attorney testifying for DISH Network and DIRECTV, asked the committee to narrow the bill to exclude those companies’ streaming services. Stewart said the two companies jointly serve “approximately 60,000 streaming customers in the state” and that their streaming offerings (DISH’s Sling and DIRECTV streaming) deliver “licensed media” rather than user-generated uploads. “Unlike, say, Facebook or TikTok or Snapchat ... there is no ability with the streaming services Sling and DIRECTV to upload customer content,” Stewart said, arguing that the platforms function like cable and should be treated the same as cable and Internet service providers, which the bill exempts.

Stewart also told senators that both services require a subscriber to be at least 18 to sign up and provide parental controls that let guardians restrict viewing. He urged the committee to revise the bill’s definition of “covered entity” so it does not capture those services.

Natali Jain, founder of the Tech Justice Law Project, testified in favor of S.69, saying the current text is “very carefully worded so as to conform to this dynamic set of judicial precedents.” Jain told the committee the bill’s focus on how products are designed — for example, algorithmic features, default settings, and transparency obligations — is both more effective at preventing harms and more legally defensible than laws that regulate content directly. “Focusing on platform design ... is a better, preferred option on two levels,” she said, adding that the measure pairs design prohibitions with privacy-by-default settings, transparency requirements and rulemaking authority for the attorney general.

Jain cited recent litigation history in which courts have considered whether platform design claims are protected expressive activity, and she referenced a Vermont state-court decision in the attorney general’s case against Meta platforms that denied Meta’s motion to dismiss. “That decision was a preliminary decision ... the motion to dismiss was denied, but the case continues,” Jain said, arguing that the Vermont lawsuit and other state actions show courts can treat alleged harmful design features as actionable without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Todd Dalo, an assistant attorney general in the Office of the Attorney General, told senators the office views S.69 as “very defensible” and expects litigation if the bill becomes law. Dalo said the attorney general’s office typically defends state statutes and that the office would engage in rulemaking and stakeholder consultation if given authority. He also said threshold tests in the bill — for example, numeric thresholds tied to records or revenue that determine which businesses are covered — are “facially and factually neutral” and therefore a defensible way to limit the law’s reach.

Committee members asked several technical and procedural questions, including whether the companies collect data on minors (Stewart said subscribers must be 18 to sign up), whether a revenue- or records-based threshold would narrow coverage, and what the state’s litigation costs might be. Dalo said he would provide examples of litigation costs in writing and reiterated that if the state prevails the fiscal effect is limited to staff time, while acknowledging the possibility of attorney-fee awards if the state lost.

No formal vote or committee action occurred during the portion of the hearing recorded in the transcript. Senators said they would review proposed amendments and written testimony and indicated S.69 will proceed through additional committee steps.

The committee invited witnesses to submit written testimony and signaled that rulemaking scope, the statutory definition of a “covered business” and thresholds that determine coverage will be central to upcoming amendment debates.