Vermont Governor Expected to Let Kids-Code Bill Become Law

Gov. Phil Scott (R) is expected to let the bill become law without signing it, Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said after it passed. S-69 is the Senate version of a House bill written by Priestley. Scott will have five days from the date that the legislature sends him the measure to sign or veto it, or it becomes law without his signature. Last year, Scott vetoed a broader privacy bill that included a proposed kids code as one piece. The governor didn’t comment Thursday.

S-69 clearing the legislature marks “a powerful step forward for Vermont families,” Priestley said. “We will not let Big Tech write the rules when it comes to child safety. Our children deserve platforms built with their well-being in mind -- not designed to exploit their data.” Priestley, who has authored multiple privacy bills, added that this one “is just the beginning.”

Vermont lawmakers passed the measure on a bipartisan basis less than 24 hours after the Nebraska legislature approved its own AADC bill (see 2505280066). Gov. Jim Pillen (R) said Wednesday that he will be “proud to sign” Nebraska’s bill. That’s despite similar measures in other states like California drawing lawsuits from the tech industry. NetChoice recently won a preliminary injunction against the California AADC Act, though the state has appealed (see 2504140058).

The Vermont House previously passed S-69 on Monday (see 2505270042) with an amendment that lengthened its implementation period and removed an applicability threshold that would have carved out small local businesses. The Senate, which previously passed the bill in March (see 2503130040), considered those changes at an Institutions Committee meeting Wednesday (see 2505280021).

"Since we last considered this bill, large social media companies -- none of whom identify as located in Vermont -- are still knowingly traumatizing our children, addicting them to social media and facilitating their physical harm,” Institutions Committee Chair Wendy Harrison (D) said on the Senate floor Thursday. "The kids-code bill is our best way to stop these activities.”

While industry groups raised concerns about “speculative harm to unidentified businesses,” Vermont legislators didn’t hear any such concerns from local businesses, said Harrison. “There are more than 100 lobbyists in our statehouse to prevent this and the [comprehensive] data privacy bill from becoming law. They have not produced a potential covered business in Vermont."

Due to the House’s amendment, the Vermont kids-code bill would take effect Jan. 1, 2027. That date would provide 18 months for the state attorney general to carry out a rulemaking to implement the proposed law.

Sen. Robert Plunkett (D) highlighted the longer “on-ramp” to implement S-69, as compared to the original bill, in comments on the Senate floor. “At the same time that businesses are preparing to deal with this, they're going to be working hand in hand with the attorney general to straighten out the rules and identify road bumps that are along the way. And in the meantime, we'll have the second session of this biennium if we do need to make any changes."

Also, Plunkett agreed with removing the threshold that would have exempted small businesses. "Why should anyone, big or small, be allowed to harm children?"

Design It for Us, a youth-led coalition that advocates for AADC bills, urged Scott to sign the bill. “We are thrilled to see kids’ online safety and privacy become a priority across the country, and excited that Vermont has taken this step to become a leader in the space,” said co-Chair Zamaan Qureshi.

However, NetChoice urged states to reject AADC measures in an emailed statement Thursday. “Courts are consistently ruling that these are censorship regimes masquerading as online safety laws,” said Amy Bos, its director of state and federal affairs. The First Amendment “unapologetically” protects free speech from government interference, she said. “These laws put those very free speech rights for all Americans at risk -- online and offline.”

Future of Privacy Forum officials noted that the Nebraska bill takes a lighter touch than other states’ AADC measures. “Not to get too existential, but I'm not sure at what point an age-appropriate design code can still be called an age-appropriate design code,” Deputy Director Bailey Sanchez posted Thursday on LinkedIn: For example, the Nebraska bill “omits a duty of care or any obligations to consider the best interests of children" and "is silent on transparency requirements and age-appropriate policies.”

FPF Senior Director Keir Lamont commented that the Nebraska bill applies only to businesses that generate more than half their revenue from selling or sharing consumer data. “Isn't that likely to exclude many players?” he asked.