Vermont Rep. Priestley Digs in for Fight on Trio of Privacy Bills

The Vermont House Economic Affairs Committee plans to clear the Senate-passed age-appropriate design code bill (S-69) on Tuesday, said Priestley, a committee member. “Immediately after” that, the panel will hear testimony on a comprehensive privacy bill (S-71), she said. It heard testimony earlier this month on S-69, a copy of a House bill by Priestley (see 2504080064).

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee this week heard testimony on another Priestley bill (H-342) that would bring a statute like New Jersey Daniel’s Law to Vermont (see 2504230018). If approved, the bill will go next to the Institutions Committee, she said.

The Vermont session usually ends in mid-May but could extend to nearly month’s end this year due to other education-related legislative matters, said Priestley. The legislator said a House-Senate conference before then is likely on S-71, but not S-69 or H-342. However, debate over the Daniel’s Law bill was contentious in the House, where it passed March 28 (see 2503280028), and Priestley said she expects the fight to continue in the Senate.

S-71, which passed the Senate last month (see 2503270021), started as a copy of Priestley’s H-208. The original comprehensive privacy bill included a private right of action and strict data minimization rules. However, a Vermont Senate committee replaced the bill's text with an industry-favored proposal (S-93), which consumer privacy advocates have called weak (see 2503140056).

Now that the bill is in the House, Priestley and a legislative counsel have been writing “comparison documents” about where S-71 “started and where [the bill] is now” for the Economic Affairs Committee. “So instead of doing a walkthrough of just” S-71, the legislative counsel plans on delivering a side-by-side analysis, she said.

Priestley said she has spent a lot of time trying to clarify the controversial enforcement and data minimization requirements in her original bill. The lawmaker remains committed to the private right of action, making it unlike other state privacy laws, which rely on AG enforcement only. “I'm not wedded to the model that we have in the bill,” she said. “What I am for is a strong enforcement mechanism, however we get to that, [but] I don't think that is just AG enforcement alone.”

Priestley acknowledged concerns about data-minimization requirements featured in Maryland’s comprehensive privacy law, effective this October. However, the Vermont legislator said she wants her law to have strong data minimization, too. “Point out the gray areas to me ... I want to do something to make those a little bit more clear.”

Unlike with the comprehensive privacy bill, the Senate “barely made any changes” to Priestley’s AADC measure. Yet Republicans on the House Economic Affairs Committee "hated" exempting smaller businesses, “so we’re removing the threshold” and “setting it back to zero,” said the legislator, adding that Senate leaders are “cool with the changes.”

Priestley has been following court cases around AADC Acts in other states, including a recent ruling against California’s law that has been appealed (see 2504140058). She said the House committee will consider some changes Tuesday that partly respond to the California court decision.

Lobbying “has been intense” and will “continue to be intense,” said Priestley. For example, “there are trade associations that have formed -- like CDIA formed a PAC to fundraise off of killing these bills,” she said. “I don’t think Vermont is used to having people fly in to do that.”

One difference in the state rep’s approach in 2025 compared to last year is that she has “very consciously been checking in with senators” and the offices of the governor, lieutenant governor and the attorney general, she said. Last year, Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed Priestley’s comprehensive privacy bill, in part because of its enforcement mechanism. This year, Priestley and the governor’s office are talking, "which didn’t happen at all last year,” she said. “In that way, I’m hopeful that we can figure it out.”

Close to the interview’s end, Connecticut state Sen. James Maroney (D) interrupted to ask for a photo with Priestley. Maroney authored his state’s comprehensive privacy law and told Privacy Daily earlier that the Connecticut Senate will likely vote on an update to the measure in mid-May (see 2504220040).

“We chat every week, if not sometimes daily,” said Priestley after Maroney departed. She added that she also regularly compares notes with privacy bill authors from Maine and Massachusetts. So, when lobbyists suggest that Vermont closely align its privacy bill with the Connecticut model, Priestley said she responds that she’s “literally” talking to Connecticut, “and they're not even happy with their model the way it is right now.”