Panel Debates Definitions in Vt. Age-Appropriate Design Code Bill

S-69 says that a “covered business” is a “sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, other legal entity, or an affiliate thereof, that conducts business in this State and whose online products, services, or features are reasonably likely to be accessed by a minor.” The business also “collects consumers’ personal data or has consumers’ personal data collected on its behalf by a processor; and alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of consumers personal data” in order to count as covered.

Committee Chair Wendy Harrison (D) said “it's not a business who sells shoes,” but instead a “business that develops and provides online services, products or features.”

Sen. Russ Ingalls (R) disagreed, sparking debate over whose interpretation was correct. “That's how business is done” now, he said. “It's not done by newspaper ads anymore. It's done by internet sales.”

“Let me just be very clear,” Harrison said. “The intent of this language -- and we'll talk to our attorneys, maybe we need to make this more specific -- but the intent of this language is that only online services” are covered.”

Megan Stokes, state policy director for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, also raised concerns about the bill's language. In testimony to the committee, Stokes said the legislation could be problematic for privacy and data security.

“Although the bill does not directly require age verification, the definitions in the policy itself are currently vague enough that sites would have no choice but to implement some form of age-verification technology to ensure compliance,” she said. “We’re also concerned that this measure may be premature, as recent state legislation that would implement online age verification or estimation measures is currently facing numerous constitutional challenges, and multiple federal judges have placed laws on hold until those challenges could be fully reviewed.”

NetChoice also testified against the bill, in light of its recent litigation against similar measures in other states, like Maryland (see 2502030065). “SB-69 presents websites with an impossible choice,” said Amy Bos, director of state and federal affairs. “Either they can proactively censor broad categories of constitutionally protected speech, or they can force users to submit personal, sensitive personal information for age verification.”

“To comply with the law, websites would likely need to collect information from both adults and minors," continued Bos. "This data-collection requirement creates new vectors for identity theft and security breaches, while actually reducing privacy protections for the very people the bill aims to protect.”

Officials from the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Design It For Us, an advocate for kids-code bills in various states, supported S-69 earlier this week (see 2502180029).