Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I haven't said that yet. Good evening, everyone. From White House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Friday evening, May twenty second twenty twenty six at 06:24 in Mobitik. Due to the new draft, that's '71. And we have our legislative council with us for Sago. I don't think Don't see it on. Yes.

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: I don't see it on there?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Not yet. I think

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: it's 5.2. There it is.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 5.2. It 5.2.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That crash. Ready.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So good evening. Rick Segal with the office of legislative council. So draft 5.2 should be online if I get soon. Are roughly four changes from this version, from 5.1. I'll go in chronological order of these changes. The first change is on the biometric data definition. The committee decided to go with the addition of the phrase characteristics that are collected on or used to identify a specific consumer.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Now I got to share.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next change, we're going through the definitions. PAI of understanding is the same as in 5.1, so no change from 5.1. The next change is in the data minimization piece. I'm sorry, the exemptions piece.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: On

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page 20, adding title five of Gramm Leach Blyley. I didn't hear a clear decision if you wanted to switch over to nonpublic personal information. So for now, it's data subject to title five. K? Going down to consumer personal rights, there's one change. The authorization is for the entire subsection A, not just A, three, and five, the entire subsection. That's on

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: page 25.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next up is the data minimization section on page 30 or so. So there was a request after committee met, was done meeting to This kind of actually reflects what was in 4.2, which I tried to fix. And there was a request to kind of go back to what was in 4.2. Not exactly 4.2, but So 5.1 said limit the collection and processing. The request is to just go to collection, limit the collection of the consumer's personal data. So the next change is after for which data are processed, comma, as disclosed to consumer, which is still going to be in the privacy notice. That language remains. But the 5.1, the way it was worded was that the processing was to be disclosed in the privacy notice in subsection C.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Kirk White? Ask him. I'll jump in the mic.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: Sorry. Yeah, I actually heard that one. Well, I guess it's not a question. Do you want to talk about this now? Because it's a big change from what I thought we talked about in the morning, And I had circulated First Amendment, I think, a couple of days ago. Dealt with this very particular issue, because my feeling from the testimony was that the way it was written before, the phrase as disclosed to the consumer basically negated the obligation of the controller to actually data minimize, which number one, that's a weird way to phrase it. And sort of negates, I think, a real promise that we had in the bill. So, I don't know what to do about that. I'm in favor of putting back in something that I thought wasn't a good idea. But it's exerting, and so I'll stop talking. I wanted to make sure that my feelings are known about that. And I'd like some way to register on the record, or what if I have to know how to do that, that I really object to this change. No matter how necessary the committee may feel it is, I really object to that. I don't think it's right. I think that to the idea that, well, we could fix this later, that's not my experience with legislation. That when you adopt an axiom piece of legislation as complicated and controversial as this, once you enact it, it's gonna be there for a while. So I don't I won't be back, but I think that others that are gonna be back just won't have that opportunity. So I think this is the key moment. And I don't know how I raise the flag or something or whatever, but I really object to this change.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Noted and understood. What's that? Noted and understood.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: Journalized? Can we journalize my remarks?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You're forever on YouTube.

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: I'm just curious. This feels very out of the blue. It feels very, like, not what the direction that we were talking about. So I'm curious where this came from.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. As we're getting to the end of session and trying to get bills passed, we have to make compromises that aren't perfect. If this bill was what I wanted it to be, I would have a world where I could in to anything that I felt like and opt out and still have access, and I could pay for the things that I needed to pay for. And unfortunately, we are not in a position to be able to do that right now. I just I find it's an impartial person

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: on my mind that we've worked really hard to try to thread the needle here, and we talked about this at length, and it is really upsetting and discharging to see it back. I'm curious more openly where this request came from. I'm

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: really surprised.

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: It's not what we talked about. But I understand, I take your point, Edye. I get that we have

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: to make compromises. That's the

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: whole job. But I just, as somebody who was on the committee, feel rather blindsided by this.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: David, one more thing. So it's almost like we're putting this language in here, and it's modified kinda out of existence. And I mean, why do we even have subdivision one name? Because

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it's a loser.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: And just picking up on Emily's point, I don't wanna put you folks in a tough spot, but it'd be nice to know whose impetus this is. I don't think any of us on the committee are real happy about it. But I think it'd be good for get on the record, maybe, who's requesting, we had something, then it changed, I understand, but maybe it's important to get on the record, what group requested this and why?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: There's a chamber.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: They can maybe the why would

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: be helpful. They're here. Yeah,

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Megan Sullivan for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. I mean, we've been pretty clear on where we're at on data minimization. We were asked where we

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thought the bill was,

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: and this was continued to be a major challenge for us. It's not up to us how we do you accept this or you don't own it? But that was the response that this definition continued to be a challenge for us as being a definition that was very different from what we were seeing in other states, which would make this a new area

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: of compliance for Parkinson's disease.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: Can I have a follow-up? Really do. And I understand you're advocating for them. I guess,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you know,

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: would you agree that the phrase as disclosed to the consumer means that the controller really is able to do whatever they have they want in the collection first.

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. What's

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: what is left that's meaningful, judge, in that subjugation one? In terms of a consumer right, what right does the consumer have in terms of having the control or limited collection of person there?

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: You have to have a disclosure. It has to be tied to it in a reasonable necessary proportion, right, which is very tight relationship to that disclosure. And then as a consumer, you're getting seven different rights, substantive rights, the right to know what data has been collected, the right to modify, to correct, the right to delete, get out of targeted advertising, the right to know if your data is going to be sold to third parties. And the last one I can't remember off the top of my head. Does it include or not a consumer

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: consent? If it's for that With sensitive data. The

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: sensitive data it does.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: For any other personal data? It is an opt out.

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: So you get a clear and conspicuous disclosure. You get a disclosure and then you can exercise your rights. And the controller can't go beyond that, which has been disclosed to the consumer. It's about consumer choice at the end of the day.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: Yeah, I just see, and I won't belabor it anymore, I see that at the end of the day, the consumer will not have a meaningful right to consent to the collection of a personal data because of that phrase, as

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: he quotes to the consumer.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: Thank you for letting me.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And thank you, Jeff. So your options are not accepted, go back to what we had. It's there for your discussion. I mean, it's there for the committee to decide.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: So

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: think about it. When we finished off the floor, come right back here, and we need to make a decision because if we're not Yeah. Yeah. If we wanna go back to what we had before, then I don't think there's point of moving on.

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: That's great.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. So that's what we have to decide. Yeah.

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Are we gonna hear from consumer production advocates that represent, like, just general consumers at all on this? Because all

[Jeff (last name unknown) – Consumer privacy advocate]: we've been hearing