The Memorial Committee on Commerce and Economic Development met on Friday to review competing versions of a draft privacy bill that would let designated public servants request that companies stop disclosing their home addresses and other protected personal information. Committee members debated whether the measure should target registered data brokers, broader “commercial entities,” or include public agencies, and agreed to have staff draft a substitute amendment and to commission a study of the burden on government systems.

The dispute centered on scope and remedies. Legal counsel Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Council walked members through a side‑by‑side comparison of the committee’s commerce version and Representative Harvey’s amendment, noting several substantive changes in definitions and enforcement. “I have a side by side so that we can take a look at the difference,” Segal said as he described differences in how the bills define who is covered, what counts as a disclosure, and what remedies are available.

Why it matters: The bill targets people the transcript labels “covered persons” (judges, jurors, government lawyers, prosecutors, law‑enforcement officers and some other public servants). If enacted, it could require companies that maintain or sell personal‑data lists to stop publicly disclosing certain contact information on notice — and it could force towns and state agencies to change how some records are published online. Committee members repeatedly warned the combination of a broad definition of disclosure, inclusion of public agencies, and civil remedies could trigger constitutional or public‑records conflicts and expose municipalities to legal liability.

Key details and debate

- Scope: Representative Harvey’s amendment removed the term “data broker” and replaced it with “commercial entity,” a change that would sweep more private businesses into coverage. Members raised concerns the broader term would reach many ordinary commercial interactions and urged reverting to the committee’s original, narrower “data broker” approach. By the end of the session the committee directed staff to prepare a substitute that keeps the data‑broker focus rather than adopting a blanket “commercial entity” definition.

- Definitions of disclosure: The Harvey amendment narrows “disclose” to something like “publicly posting,” while the commerce version used a longer list (sell, provide, trade, post, etc.). Segal told the committee the narrower wording likely would be interpreted more narrowly — for example, a paywalled database or a business‑to‑business sale may not be covered unless the text expressly includes those acts. Members asked for clearer language to cover paywalled third‑party databases used to locate people.

- Protected classes and timing: The Harvey amendment includes “active or former judges, government lawyers and law enforcement” and a time‑limited category for jurors (jurors who served within the prior 18 months). Several members said the juror rule as written was confusing and asked staff to clarify whether the 18‑month window is measured from service or from the time a request is made. Segal said the current draft ties the 18 months to service and that the committee could change that wording.

- Remedies and enforcement: The bills differ on remedies. The commerce version envisioned a private civil remedy with damages (including a statutory floor) after a 15‑ to 30‑day cure period; the Harvey amendment focuses on a faster injunctive path (a 15‑day notice period) and limits immediate recovery to reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs for a successful injunction, reserving additional remedies for later court action. Members debated whether punitive damages, statutory minimums, or a fine schedule for repeated violations should be included. Several members urged giving courts discretion to impose civil contempt penalties or fines if an injunction is ignored.

- Public agencies and municipal systems: Members repeatedly raised the effect on towns and state systems. Segal highlighted an existing Vermont provision (cited in the meeting) that already requires municipalities to remove certain particularly sensitive data from public websites, and he warned that expanding the bill to apply to public agencies could create large operational and legal burdens — for example, for GIS real‑property systems and clerks’ offices that publish property addresses and titles. The committee asked for a study of how municipal and state systems would comply.

- Exemptions for regulated transactions: Members pressed to exempt business‑to‑business transactions and regulated‑entity uses that are necessary to complete consumer transactions (for example, mortgage underwriting, insurance, health‑care transactions covered by HIPAA, and financial‑services activities governed by the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act). They discussed drafting a narrowly tailored exemption for transactions that are initiated by the covered person and that are otherwise regulated.

Directives and next steps

The committee gave staff and counsel several instructions: draft a substitute amendment that retains the committee’s data‑broker focus rather than adopting the broader “commercial entity” label; clarify the juror time window and the list of covered public servants; and refine the definitions of “disclose” and of transactional exemptions. The committee also asked counsel to coordinate with the Judiciary Committee on remedies and enforcement language and directed a short study by state operational offices (the Agency of Digital Services, the Secretary of State’s office), the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and the clerks’ association to report back on cost and operational impacts. The chair closed by scheduling a follow‑up meeting for Tuesday at 9:00 a.m.

Quotes

“I have a side by side so that we can take a look at the difference,” Rick Segal, attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee as he walked through the competing drafts.

“If they get the request 15 days later, they shall stop disclosing,” Segal said while explaining the amendment’s injunctive remedy timing.

“We're gonna come back to this at 09:00 Tuesday,” the committee chair said as members agreed to ask staff to prepare a revised draft and to consult the Judiciary Committee on enforcement language.

Ending

Committee members said they had narrowed their areas of disagreement but left major drafting choices — the treatment of public agencies, the exact definition of disclosure, and the mix of injunctive relief versus statutory damage remedies — to the substitute amendment and to follow‑up work with Judiciary and municipal stakeholders. Counsel will circulate a new draft before the next meeting and an interagency study will report back on technical and cost implications for state and local systems.