Senate amends, advances bill to require ‘‘age-appropriate’’ online design and privacy protections for children

The Vermont Senate on March 12 amended and advanced S.69, an "age-appropriate design" bill that would require covered internet services to design products and default settings to reduce harms to children and increase privacy protections.

Senator from Windham, the bill reporter, said the measure requires covered businesses to "design their online services in a way that is not unreasonably harmful to children" and to owe a duty of care to children whose data they process. The Senate adopted the committee-recommended amendment on a roll call vote, with 25 senators voting yes and five voting no; senators then ordered the bill to third reading.

Supporters told the committee and the floor that the bill targets large international internet companies rather than Vermont firms. The reporter said the legislation would not control or limit content, which she said remains protected by the U.S. Constitution, but would restrict design practices and algorithms that she described as intended to "addict" children. "Parents try, but parents and their children are completely outgunned by the $300,000,000,000 online marketplace," the senator said on the floor.

Key provisions described by the reporter include: a duty of care standard for covered businesses; default privacy settings that prevent a child's account from being publicly visible and bar unknown adults from contacting a child; a prohibition on push notifications to children between midnight and 6 a.m.; requirements that companies provide privacy information and detailed descriptions of algorithmic recommendation systems; limits on collecting or sharing a child's personal data except to provide the requested service; and authority for the attorney general to adopt rules prohibiting design practices that would lead to compulsive use and to update those rules at least every two years.

The reporter recounted testimony and examples given to the committee, including a case described by Attorney Laura Marquez Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center involving two Vermont girls who joined a social app and were targeted through friend recommendations. The senator said the bill's age-assurance provisions and privacy defaults would have prevented the friend-recommendation path that led to the harm described in that testimony.

The bill as amended also includes numeric thresholds to exempt smaller businesses: an otherwise-covered entity that processed personal data for fewer than 25,000 consumers in the previous calendar year is excluded; the amendment additionally exempts entities that processed data for fewer than 50,000 consumers and that had under $1,000,000 in gross annual revenue in the previous year. The reporter said the committee knew of no Vermont businesses that would be covered after those exemptions.

Opponents on the floor expressed procedural and drafting concerns. The Senator from Essex said the measure "was written by California" and warned the legislation could prompt litigation; she urged Vermont stakeholders be brought into drafting a state-specific bill. Other senators raised questions about the accuracy and feasibility of age-verification methods and whether rulemaking would adequately address those concerns.

Enforcement under the bill would leverage the Vermont Consumer Protection Act: the attorney general would be authorized to adopt rules, conduct civil investigations and pursue remedies. The reporter also said existing private rights of action under consumer protection law would remain available.

The Senate debate on S.69 included a request that the final vote be taken by role; the amendment was adopted on a roll call (25–5). Several senators offered brief explanations of their votes on the floor. After subsequent proceedings, senators ordered a third reading of the bill.

If enacted, the bill would require state rulemaking to implement detailed technical requirements, and several senators acknowledged the potential for legal challenges as other states have faced litigation over similar measures.