Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Children Digital Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate concurs with House changes to 'kids code' age-appropriate design bill, delays effective date
Summary
The Vermont Senate agreed to the House's amendments to S.69, the "kids code" age-appropriate design bill, and approved a further amendment to push effective dates and direct the attorney general to begin rulemaking before the law takes effect.
The Vermont Senate voted to concur in the House's proposal of amendment to S.69, known as the kids code or age-appropriate design bill, and approved a further amendment changing the bill's effective dates and directing the attorney general to undertake rulemaking prior to enactment.
Supporters said the bill is intended to protect children from harms linked to social media design. "Protecting kids from harm is a value we share across the parties and the chambers," the senator from Windham said, citing testimony about platform features that can "render kids unable to sleep, to eat, or to look other people in the eye." The senator said the House vote on the amended bill was 133 to 9 and reminded colleagues the Senate had previously passed a similar version in March by a 25-5 vote.
The Senate's acceptance of the House amendments centers on three categories of change, according to floor remarks: focusing the statute on design requirements rather than on content to strengthen constitutional defensibility; removing customer-number thresholds for covered businesses so requirements apply to activities and outputs rather than external metrics; and pushing the effective date to allow the attorney general time to promulgate rules. "This gives businesses more time to work directly with the AG," the senator from Bennington said, adding that the change provides a longer on-ramp and an opportunity to identify "road bumps" before the law takes effect.
Other technical changes the House made and the Senate accepted include narrowing certain exclusions (for example, limiting the applicability of a Gramm-Leach-Bliley reference to financial institutions rather than a broader data category), removing references to speech elements to reduce constitutional risk, clarifying definitions such as "minor" and "processor," and rephrasing transparency and default privacy-setting requirements without substantive change.
Floor action: a motion that the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment with a further proposal of amendment changing the effective dates was made and carried by voice vote.
The bill's sponsors urged colleagues to weigh documented harms to minors against speculative impacts on Vermont businesses; Senate floor remarks said no Vermont business has been identified as clearly covered and cited one local online forum (Front Porch Forum) as signaling support for complying with the bill's requirements. The senator from Windham also said the bill complements separate legislation passed earlier to restrict cell phone use in schools.
The Senate record shows concurrence with the House amendments and the additional change to effective dates; the floor comments say the attorney general will use the extra time to promulgate rules that may smooth implementation for covered entities.
