Attorney General: H.11 duplicates consumer-protection powers, better handled by Department of Public Service

Todd Zaglow, system attorney general, Attorney General's Office, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 14 that the attorney general's office "does not support H.11 as it is drafted."

Zaglow said the office supports the goals behind the bill — improving broadband access and protecting consumers — but raised three central concerns: the committee has not established the scope of the consumer-protection problem H.11 would solve; many consumer complaints in this area are already routed to the Department of Public Service; and several H.11 provisions duplicate or could narrow the attorney general's existing authority under Vermont's consumer-protection statute.

The nut graf: Zaglow urged the committee to weigh whether a new, regulatory reporting regime for broadband should sit in the attorney general's office or with the Department of Public Service, which already handles many regulated utility complaints and has existing relationships with providers. He also offered to provide the committee with complaint-volume information to clarify how often Vermonters raise these issues.

Zaglow told lawmakers that the AG's office routinely enforces Title 9, Chapter 63 — the Consumer Protection Act — and uses that authority to pursue unfair or deceptive practices by commercial entities. "We already have the authority under the existing law to investigate them, to produce a civil investigative demand, and then to move forward if necessary with litigation penalties laid after chapter 63," he said. He added that many of the prohibited practices enumerated in H.11 (he referenced specific language in the bill) would fall within that broad UDAP authority.

On the question of where enforcement and dispute resolution should live, Zaglow said the Department of Public Service (DPS) is "a better fit" because it is the regulator for many telecom and utility providers and has established relationships and informal dispute-resolution pathways with those companies. "They can get on the phone, make the call, and help resolve it," he said, contrasting the DPS's "soft authority" and relationships with the AG's enforcement-oriented role.

The testimony also warned of a resource impact: implementing H.11 as drafted would impose a "significant lift" on the attorney general's office and could shift the office's role from enforcement (after consumer complaints and investigations) toward ongoing regulation and reporting. Zaglow said the office is willing to enforce deceptive or unfair practices when they are identified, but that a new, prescriptive regulatory regime would require additional resources and is not the office's typical function.

Committee members pressed for concrete complaint counts and transparency. Zaglow offered to provide the committee with the AG office's broadband-related complaint volumes and noted that his office often forwards regulated-entity complaints to the DPS. He also said he had asked DPS staff about what complaint information the department publishes and was told DPS does not publish identifying complaint details; Zaglow recommended clarifying what high-level transparency about complaint volumes and resolutions exists.

Zaglow told the committee the AG's office supports strong data-protection rules generally and would welcome legislation that strengthens breach notification and data-broker regulation, but said H.11 as drafted raises questions about overlap with existing statutes and the best administrative home for ongoing regulation.

Ending: Zaglow offered to submit written follow-up material and to provide complaint data for the committee and DPS; committee leadership said they would follow up with written questions and invited additional testimony as needed.