Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont committee considers using Connecticut model as basis for state data-privacy bill
Summary
The Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development debated whether to adopt Connecticut'025 as a template for S.71 or modify recent Vermont drafts; members favored passing legislation quickly but split over copying another state's law verbatim versus tailoring protections for Vermonters.
The chair of the Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development said the panel must choose whether to finish work on S.71 now or use Connecticut'025 as a starting point for a Vermont data-privacy law, with moderate changes to protect Vermonters. "We have two choices to make," the chair said, urging the committee to reach a decision on which path to follow.
Committee members generally agreed that some law is preferable to none. One said starting with a model such as Connecticut'025 and making tweaks would provide "a basis for data privacy in the production" that the committee could build on. Several members emphasized regional harmonization so Vermont residents would at least have protections similar to visitors from neighboring states.
At the same time, one member strongly objected to copying Connecticut'025 without substantial revision, arguing that Connecticut'025 contains exemptions that leave many complaints unaddressable and would give Vermonters a "false sense of security." That member raised specific concerns about weak definitions, the absence of meaningful limits on data monetization, and the lack of a prohibition on the sale of precise geolocation data.
Committee members asked for clarification about which version of Connecticut'025 the committee would use and whether staff had reviewed the text. One member said Connecticut'025 appeared more protective than other drafts but noted the document is "very hard to read online" and requested that staff provide the legislation for review over the coming days.
Several members urged a pragmatic approach: begin with the most recent Vermont draft statutes (from 2022/2023), incorporate elements of Connecticut'025 where they strengthen Vermonter protections, and avoid inserting provisions that could create unintended loopholes. Members also warned of a tight legislative calendar and the need to continue work during floor breaks next week.
No formal motion or vote was recorded during the meeting. The committee agreed to continue drafting and to circulate documents for review; the chair said staff would produce materials and the panel would reconvene while the legislature is off the floor. The meeting adjourned with members reminded of upcoming floor sessions and a plan to resume detailed work on S.71.
