Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont House passes consumer data privacy bill after rejecting stricter amendment
Summary
The Vermont House voted to advance Senate Bill 71, a consumer data privacy measure, after declining an amendment that would have banned sale of sensitive categories. Lawmakers debated thresholds, exemptions for health and financial sectors, and whether consent pop-ups adequately protect Vermonters.
The Vermont House voted on May 26 to advance Senate Bill 71, an act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance, adopting the Commerce and Economic Development committee’s recommended approach rather than a stricter amendment that would have removed certain categories from permitted data uses.
Representative Greer of Bennington introduced the rejected amendment, saying it “removes a few keywords from the bill” to strengthen protections for Vermonters’ sensitive data and arguing that standard consent mechanisms are ‘‘manufactured’’ and not meaningful. Greer cited Maryland’s recent ban on sale of sensitive data as a model and warned that reliance on consent pop-ups allows firms to “use your data for purposes you most likely do not consent to.”
The bill’s floor presentation and interrogations focused on applicability thresholds and sector exemptions. The member from Bradford, presenting the committee’s report, said the bill’s general applicability threshold is 35,000 Vermonters’ records per year, and that a lower 3,000 threshold was set for sale of sensitive data and certain processing because that figure was supplied by business witnesses, including the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. He also explained that many exemptions (notably health care, banking and insurance) reflect existing federal and state regulation, particularly HIPAA for health providers.
Members divided over strategy: supporters said the committee-recommended bill establishes a necessary Vermont baseline and was crafted through months of testimony and compromise; critics said carve-outs and weakened language risk leaving Vermonters unprotected and attributed parts of the bill’s language to industry influence. The member from Winooski, who identified his employer as Front Porch Forum, said his organization would be subject to the bill and warned that burying purposes in lengthy privacy policies raises “major red flags.”
On the motion to propose the committee-recommended amendments to the Senate, the House recorded a roll call: 129 voted yes and 3 voted no. Later in the evening the body suspended rules to place S.71 in all remaining stages; the House reported passage in concurrence with the proposal of amendment and prepared to message its action to the Senate.
Next steps: the House has sent its amended proposal to the Senate for concurrence and ordered third reading; the bill will proceed through the Senate and any differences will be resolved in subsequent legislative steps.
