Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Privacy advocates tell Vermont committee stronger enforcement and AI limits are needed in S.71
Summary
Eric Noll of the Center for Democracy & Technology urged the committee to move beyond notice‑and‑consent, add AG rulemaking and civil penalty authority, and consider private right of action and AI safeguards to prevent data repurposing for model training.
Eric Noll, director of the privacy and data program at the Center for Democracy & Technology, told the House Commerce & Economic Development committee that most existing state privacy laws rely on a weak notice‑and‑consent model that leaves individuals overwhelmed and unprotected.
"We need to stop making protecting privacy a purely individual problem," Noll said, arguing companies should bear the burden of justifying data collection. He warned that a disclosure‑only regime allows companies to list opaque purposes — for example, "to train AI" — without meaningful limits on collection, retention or repurposing. Noll urged the committee to adopt substantive limits, stronger enforcement mechanisms and AI‑specific protections including antidiscrimination safeguards.
On enforcement, Noll recommended that Vermont give the Attorney General rulemaking authority and civil penalty power and provide additional funding for enforcement. He also said a private right of action limited to actual damages and injunctive relief would make the law "table stakes" for meaningful enforcement, while pointing to Texas and California as models that illustrate both funding and institutional approaches to enforcement.
Committee members pressed Noll on whether a small state AG can meaningfully enforce against large firms; Noll responded that resourcing matters and that injunctive remedies and state coalition enforcement are ways states can amplify capacity. He also urged the committee to consider ex‑ante rulemaking powers to encourage compliance rather than relying solely on ex‑post litigation.
Noll recommended continuing to evaluate AI risks beyond privacy — including civil rights impacts — and said Vermont should design enforcement and remedies that create credible deterrence.
