House approves age-appropriate design code for online services after heated debate

The House on third reading voted to propose to the Senate amendments recommended by the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development to S.69, an "age-appropriate design code" that seeks to limit design features and data practices that lawmakers and advocates say harm children.

The bill reporter, the member from Milton (Representative; name not specified), opened debate by saying the bill "does not ban content. It does not censor speech. It does not criminalize expression. What it does do is place reasonable guardrails around how digital products and services interact with children." The reporter said the bill addresses features such as infinite scroll, late-night push notifications and complex privacy settings and instructs covered businesses to set children's accounts to the most private settings by default.

Key provisions: The bill defines a "covered business" by revenue, number of children whose data are processed, or the share of revenue derived from selling personal information. It requires high-privacy defaults for minors, restricts unsolicited direct contact from unknown adults, limits certain uses of children's personal data for recommendations unless affirmatively requested, and directs the attorney general to adopt enforcement rules under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act. The statute includes guidance on age-assurance methods but does not mandate a specific age-verification technology.

Support and testimony: Supporters pointed to testimony from pediatricians, child-welfare advocates and the Social Media Victims Law Center; a member from Williston read a portion of testimony describing families and children harmed by social platforms, quoting the center's counsel describing severe trauma and alleging that "these companies are killing children by design." Proponents repeatedly framed the bill as a child-protection measure focused on product design and privacy defaults rather than content moderation.

Opposition and legal concerns: Opponents warned of constitutional and economic risks. The member from Castleton (Representative; name not specified) argued the bill was overly broad, could sweep in many small and medium-sized Vermont businesses, and raised First Amendment concerns about limitations on editorial judgment and algorithmic recommendations; the member cited court rulings that have struck down similar laws in other states. The floor debate included back-and-forth on whether the bill's text avoids the legal mistakes that led to prior litigation in other states.

Vote and procedure: The House called the roll on the question and recorded 133 yes, 9 no; the clerk announced the ayes have it and ordered third reading. Floor discussion included calls to support the bill as a state-level remedy while federal law remains unaltered (noting the Communication Decency Act section 230 as background), and to protect children from what supporters described as commercially driven design harms.

Next steps and timing: The bill takes effect July 1, 2027, under the committee report, and the attorney general may begin rulemaking July 1, 2025. Supporters said the intervals allow time for businesses and regulators to plan and for the attorney general to issue guidance on age-assurance methods.

Ending: Advocates urged the House to prioritize children's safety over corporate practices; critics urged careful revision to avoid constitutional exposure and avoid unintended burdens on small Vermont companies.