Vt. Version of 'Daniel's Law' Passes House Despite Private Right of Action Concerns

The House voted 106-38 to adopt a substitute amendment modifying enforcement and some other aspects of H-342, which is meant to protect judges and other officials from stalkers and extremists (see 2503140065). The House voted by voice to pass H-342 and send it to the Senate.

Legislators agreed to an amendment by the Commerce and Economic Development Committee that gives the attorney general authority to enforce H-342 and make regulations to implement the law that would restrict the disclosure of personal information like home addresses and phone numbers of public servants. The AG would be able to assess up to $10,000 per violation by data brokers who don’t cease disclosing data.

Under the PRA as amended, data brokers would get a 15-days safe harbor upon being served a civil suit. If they comply, the brokers would only be liable for attorney fees and court costs. If they don’t, data brokers could be subject to “the greater of actual damages or liquidated damages” of $1,000 per violation, “punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law,” plus reasonable attorney fees or other litigation costs and “any other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.”

AG enforcement would take effect first, in July this year, while the PRA would not come into effect until Jan. 1. However, the bill still needs approval from the Senate and a signature from Gov. Phil Scott (R).

Rep. Zachary Harvey (R) protested the bill’s PRA as he opposed H-342 during the webcast House floor session. "The bill before us has drifted from its core purpose,” he said. “What you see before you today is no longer Daniel's Law or anything reminiscent of it, and it has transformed in ways that raise serious red flags."

The PRA, “complete with liquidated damages, punitive damages and fines,” is only there to incentivize lawyers to bring cases, he said. "Is this bill really about protecting covered individuals or enriching bad actors?" Also, Harvey complained that the committee that amended the bill heard no testimony from data brokers.

However, House Commerce Chair Michael Marcotte (R) said the committee considered an injunctive approach to enforcement with no PRA. But a Vermont judge testified that this approach wouldn’t work as it would "clog the courts," said Marcotte. "That's when we changed direction."

"Just as in all businesses, whether they're data brokers or they're attorneys, there are good actors and there are bad actors,” said the committee chair. “We can't control that. What we need is to make sure we are creating a deterrent" that ensures data brokers "comply when a covered person asks hem to remove their data or redact it."

The committee compromised to get from an initial 7-4 split to a unanimous vote, Marcotte added. Later, Rep. Lisa Hango (R) said that although she has "serious reservations" about the PRA, she was voting for the amendment in acknowledgement of the committee’s work on the bill.

The changes that Harvey wanted to make to H-342 were "straight out of a playbook to kill this bill,” said bill sponsor Rep. Monique Priestley (D).

Rep. Laura Sibilia, an independent, cited current events as reason to support the bill. “We're seeing in horrifying and alarming detail federally why this is such an urgent issue."

"Today’s vote marks a critical victory, but our fight is far from over," Priestley said in a written statement after the vote. "Daniel’s Law is about more than privacy -- it's about ensuring our public servants can protect themselves and their loved ones from real, deadly threats. Vermont will not back down to corporate intimidation or lobbyist pressure. We will keep fighting until basic safety and privacy are guaranteed for those who dedicate their lives to protecting all of us."

A day earlier, the Vermont Senate passed a comprehensive privacy bill (S-71) that was originally based on Priestley's H-208 until senators amended it with industry-favored language. Priestley said, "I appreciate the swift action of the Senate to send S.71 to the House."