House Commerce & Economic Development hears testimony on S.71 privacy bill draft
Commerce & Economic Development
The House Commerce & Economic Development Committee convened on April 28, 2026, to hear testimony on draft 2.3 of S.71, a proposed privacy law. Witnesses discussed the bill’s mandates, enforcement mechanisms, penalties for noncompliance, and implications for state enforcement resources and legal remedies.
S.71
Katrina Fitzgerald, deputy director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, testified in support of S.71 draft 2.3, characterizing the draft as a significant compromise from the version that passed the legislature in the prior session. Fitzgerald said she would focus her testimony on why Vermont needs a strong privacy law, background on other states’ privacy statutes, and key provisions of the draft.
Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, described how targeted advertising and related technologies contribute to consumer losses from scams and fraud. Winters discussed the consumer harms the bill seeks to address and referenced regulatory tools to limit harmful targeted advertising practices.
Other witnesses reviewed interstate developments in consumer data privacy laws and legislative processes, noting amendments and iterative changes in other states’ statutes.
Enforcement, penalties, and private rights of action
Testimony and discussion focused heavily on enforcement and penalties. Multiple witnesses noted that penalties and enforcement provisions in state privacy laws can produce significant consequences for noncompliant entities. Several speakers described models for enforcement, including sole enforcement by state attorneys general, multi-state consortiums of attorneys general, and standalone state privacy agencies.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
Witnesses cited Connecticut’s experience as an example of a state that has passed and repeatedly amended comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation, and described Connecticut’s use of existing consumer protection statutes for enforcement. One witness said Connecticut’s attorney general created an early data privacy unit to lead enforcement efforts.
The prospect of a private right of action drew particular attention. Some witnesses favored private rights of action to provide individualized remedies for consumer harm, arguing that small state attorney general offices may lack capacity to investigate and litigate every alleged violation. Others described concerns about frivolous claims and noted that courts have mechanisms to address meritless litigation. Witnesses also said private rights of action have been more likely to pass for provisions addressing children’s privacy in some states.
Several speakers recommended augmenting attorney general resources through investigative technologists, partnerships with academic researchers, shared multistate investigations, or the creation of a standalone privacy enforcement agency, citing examples in other states where such structures exist.
Conclusion
The committee hearing on April 28 covered draft 2.3 of S.71 and included testimony from privacy advocates, consumer organizations, and practitioners. Testimony concentrated on the bill’s mandates, enforcement mechanisms, penalties, the role of state attorneys general, the potential for private rights of action, and how other states have implemented and amended consumer privacy laws. The meeting involved the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee and focused on privacy, enforcement, and consumer protection issues.
FYIVTBOT | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #vtleg #goldendome #vermontpolitics
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply