Vt. Version of Daniel's Law Advances Despite Fears of Frivolous Lawsuits
The Vermont House Commerce Committee split 7-4 Friday to advance a bill (H-342) that echoes New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law. Supporting the bill in a livestreamed hearing prior to the vote, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark (D) said the lesson from New Jersey is that it’s “a pretty good bill that's defensible in court.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
H-342 would restrict the disclosure of personal information like home addresses and phone numbers of public servants. The bill contains a private action, though under the latest version, the damages remedy would be delayed six months after the bill’s July 1 effective date. Despite that delay, committee Republicans voiced reservations about the possibility of frivolous lawsuits, among other issues, at Friday’s hearing. Similar concerns arose at earlier hearings (see 2503120025).
Clark told the committee that Daniel’s Law was challenged in court and found constitutional. She disagreed with replacing H-342’s private right of action with AG enforcement. Having the AG enforce the bill would be an “awkward fit" because the AG doesn’t represent individuals but rather the state more broadly, she said.
Rep. Jonathan Cooper (D) asked if H-342 should make disclosure a criminal offense in addition a civil one. Clark disagreed with that idea because she said criminal courts are already overburdened, and civil courts don’t have as much backlog.
"Protecting this class of people is really important and ... every day that we don't move something forward is putting them at more risk,” said Ranking Democrat Kirk White. He noted that there will be more time to tweak the bill after it leaves committee. Vice Chair Edye Graning (D) agreed. "My fear is we're going to let perfect be the enemy of good and not move forward at all,” she said. “It would break my heart if something happens with people in a protected class in Vermont, and we didn't act because we were afraid we either weren't covering the right people or [because] of some unintended consequence" that hasn’t yet been seen.
The bill would still need Senate approval if it passes the House, meaning there could be more changes to it in the other chamber. And Rep. Monique Priestley (D), the bill’s sponsor, noted that it’s highly likely the Senate will edit the bill and send it back to the House, providing another opportunity for state reps to hone it. However, Rep. Michael Boutin (R) said he doesn’t trust the system enough to believe the Senate will address his problems with the measure.
“A Vermont version of Daniel's Law is a powerful statement that we will not tolerate the digital endangerment of those who protect us,” said Vermont Reps. Priestley and Angela Arsenault (D) in an op-ed for VermontBiz.
“Big Tech has made personal information a weapon,” Priestley and Arsenault wrote. “While they peddle the illusion of connection and convenience, these unscrupulous data brokers and tech giants are profiting from selling the information that puts our public servants in the crosshairs. They've built a system where home addresses and private details are readily available to anyone -- stalkers, extremists, and those bent on violent revenge. They are complicit in the danger.”