Montpelier, Vt. — The Senate Committee on Institutions heard more than four hours of testimony Feb. 21 on S.69, the proposed Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code (often called the Vermont Kids Code), with pediatricians, child-safety advocates and academic experts urging design and data limits for platforms used by minors and trade groups warning the bill’s definitions are too broad and could raise constitutional and operational issues.

Sen. Wendy Harrison, chair of the Senate Committee on Institutions, opened the hearing and introduced witnesses and committee members. The bill would require online services likely to be used by minors to adopt privacy-by-default settings, limit certain design features that encourage compulsive use, restrict some nighttime notifications and increase transparency about algorithms and harms.

Supporters framed the bill as a targeted public-health and child-safety measure. "Teens spend an average 8 and a half hours on screens," testimony from a Seton Hall law scholar said, drawing a line between platform business models and prolonged youth screen time. Heidi Schumacher, a general pediatrician testifying for the Vermont Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Vermont Medical Society, said the groups "support the common sense measures in the Vermont Kids Code to implement privacy by default and safety by design protections for kids." She described clinical observations linking excessive online exposure to bullying, sleep problems and mental-health harms in Vermont youth.

Young people who testified described personal harms. "I was 1 of the many teenage girls who grew up on Instagram and consequentially suffered from an eating disorder," Ava Smithing, advocacy director of the Young People’s Alliance, told the committee, and she urged lawmakers to pass limits on automated recommendations and profiling that she said pushed her toward harmful content.

Academic witnesses and child-safety advocates described how product design and targeted advertising sustain engagement and create commercial incentives to maximize time on platform. One witness cited a study estimating that social media advertising revenues from minors exceed $11,000,000,000 per year in the U.S. and described features such as infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations and variable-reward feeds as removing natural stopping cues and directing younger users toward risky or harmful content.

Industry witnesses and trade groups said the bill’s definitions and standards are insufficiently precise and could sweep in ordinary Vermont businesses. Megan Stokes, state policy director for the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), said the bill’s coverage—businesses whose online services are "reasonably likely to be accessed by a minor" or that know or should have known that 2% of users are minors—could be read broadly. "The bill has many vaguely defined obligations for businesses, which might leave them unable to know whether they are violating the law," Stokes said. NetChoice’s state policy director urged lawmakers to reconsider provisions she called similar to other state laws that federal courts have enjoined.

Front Porch Forum, a Vermont-based neighborhood network that described itself as mission-driven and intentionally non-surveillant, told the committee its product design (no infinite scroll, no profiling for ad targeting) differs from large platforms and that its open membership and local advertising model does not match the harms targeted by S.69. Jason Van Dreis (testifying as chief of staff for Front Porch Forum) said the company does not permit users under 14 and uses staff moderation to screen signups.

Fairplay, a national child-safety nonprofit represented by executive director Josh Golan, urged enactment and disputed industry witnesses’ content-based First Amendment concerns. "This is not a bill about regulating content," Golan told the committee; he said the bill is aimed at platform design choices and use of children’s data that promote compulsive use and known harms.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several specific elements: how to define covered businesses (social media versus any online service), how to determine whether an audience is "reasonably likely" to include minors, and how to implement age-assurance without collecting sensitive data. Trade witnesses raised technical and constitutional questions about age verification, cautioning that methods such as facial-age estimation vary in accuracy by demographic group and that recent state laws are under judicial challenge.

The hearing closed with a procedural note: the committee announced it would hold a markup session the following Wednesday at 2 p.m. to consider amendments and possible narrowing of the bill’s definitions and requirements.

Why it matters: supporters say S.69 would shift responsibility for designing safer online experiences back toward platforms and away from sole reliance on parental controls; opponents say the law as written risks unintended consequences for smaller businesses, could force invasive age checks, and may face legal challenges. The committee indicated a number of clarifying amendments—particularly to the definitions of "covered business," "online service/product/feature" and the age-assurance triggers—are likely to be considered before any final vote.

What’s next: The committee scheduled markup for Wednesday at 2 p.m.; senators and witnesses indicated they expect to circulate draft amendments in advance.