Tech coalition warns Vermont bill S.69 could prompt over‑censorship, harm vulnerable youth

Brianna January, northeast director for government relations at the Chamber of Progress, told the Vermont Senate Committee on Institutions on Feb. 20 that the coalition opposes S.69 — the proposed “age‑appropriate design” code — because its language and enforcement mechanisms would create de facto age verification and could produce harmful, unintended consequences for vulnerable youth.

The committee convened for a hearing on S.69 with Chair Wendy Harrison (Wyndham District) presiding and Senators Russ Ingalls (Essex District), Joe Major (Windsor), Rob Plunkett (Pennington) and Senator Sandbaum (New Orleans County District) participating. January testified that although the Chamber supports online safety, the bill’s broad, subjective mandates and a 2% usage threshold would force many online services to estimate or verify users’ ages, with privacy and bias risks.

“We want to be very clear that, while we are in opposition to S.69, online safety is of the utmost priority for us at Chamber of Progress,” January said. She warned that measures the bill would enable — including giving the attorney general authority to set “age assurance guidelines” — amount in practice to age verification. “Age estimation requires gathering a ton of data…there are issues with the very limited technology that’s available,” she said, adding that available biometric and behavioral estimation tools show significant bias: “we see extreme bias around Black Americans in particular. They’re often overestimated with age…Asian Americans are underestimated.”

January also flagged the bill’s “minimum duty of care” provision, which would impose liability for “reasonably foreseeable emotional distress” and “compulsive use” without clear, objective standards. That ambiguity, she said, could lead platforms to over‑moderate content to avoid liability, removing access to support and community for youth who rely on online resources. “We’re worried about those implications for Vermont’s most vulnerable youth, kids that are queer, especially kids that are in unsupported households and environments that turn to social media platforms…for community,” she said.

Committee members questioned how the bill’s language would operate in practice. A senator noted that “emotional distress” is defined in Title 13, and asked whether the Chamber had recommended language for “compulsive use.” January said she could provide stronger drafting and examples and that she would submit written testimony to the committee later the same day. She suggested the state focus on digital literacy and expanded mental‑health resources rather than requirements likely to prompt litigation: “Vermont taxpayer dollars would be much better spent doing things like increasing public programming and resources for the root of the issue,” she said, citing recent court defeats for similar laws in other states.

January identified the Chamber of Progress as a technology industry coalition whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google and Uber; she said members do not vote individually on the coalition’s positions. She offered to supply the committee with model language, examples of tools used by member companies and detailed edits aimed at reducing ambiguity around terms such as “compulsive use.”

No formal vote or committee action occurred during the hearing. Committee members asked for the witness’s written testimony and for materials on programs and algorithms the industry uses to identify and mitigate harm.

The testimony frames the central policy tradeoff before the committee: imposing enforceable duties on platforms in pursuit of child safety versus the risk that vague obligations, age‑estimation requirements and broad liability standards could push platforms to restrict content broadly or collect sensitive personal data to prove users’ ages. The committee indicated it will accept written materials from the witness and continue deliberations.