Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 30 fives. It's filled out you're

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: here for lot. Thank you very much for joining us once again in the house government operations and military affairs. We are, oh, on queue with council. Look at that. State is ripe. We are joined by senator Callamore and legislative council, to talk about s 23 and hear about the changes that are coming over from the upper chamber.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Senator, care to join us?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's good to see you again. Good to see you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Well, let me start by well, for the record, senator Collabor from the Rutland district. We were together yesterday, and, again, I have deep appreciation for, your work on the repeals report project. It really did help our our committee out quite a bit to, hear that you had actually done some further work on this and then made certain recommendations. So, with that said, s 23, I don't think I need to go over. I can, if you like, the bill itself. It was originally passed in the senate. I think it was actually before crossover. And then at the very, very last moment, in fact, it was during the veto session last year. It came back with changes that you had proposed. Unfortunately, we literally were we're at the two yard line, to use a sports analogy, and we ran out of time, and you couldn't message it back until we reconvened this year. So that's why there's been this delay. And in many cases, it feels like I did this five years ago and not last year because it's it's been hanging around for a while.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Elasticity of time

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: So we're talking about synthetic media or deep fakes in some people's minds. That's how they kinda look at it. We did take a look at the changes that the, the house had sent back, and there are two changes that the senate government operations committee has proposed. It'll be on the action calendar today on our side. So I'll stand up and report that we did not concur with the changes. Well, we concurred with 95% of your changes, but we do have a further proposal of amendment to consider. So here are the two. The first instance of amendment would change the definitions of, quote, deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media, end quote, and the words synthetic media itself to include more advertisements in the disclosure requirements. So the house government operations committee had, in many ways, tightened the definition to include only political candidate. The senate version opens that to use the word individuals. And the new definition of, again, deceptive, fraudulent, synthetic media would require a deep fake advertisement depicting any individual, not just a political candidate, to include a disclosure. It also clarifies that an ad that attempts to influence an election by providing materially false information would be included in the disclosure requirement. So couple of the examples that I think and representative, Waters Evans was with us when we talked about this. If someone were to somehow get, and again, I'll I'll use names, but it could be anybody. Bernie Sanders, senator Sanders, to endorse VL, except it was a deceptively generated ad. That is beyond just the political candidate. That's an individual acting in that situation. And it would be included in this bill now. So it's any individual, not just a political candidate whose depiction is on the screen or on the radio, however it is. It's any any individual that attempts to manipulate this would fall under the purview of this bill. The other

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: yes. I'm

[Unidentified Committee Member]: really unclear because you used two politicians in your example. Could you use non politicians in an example for May? Sure. Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: So if there's an issue on a ballot, whether a town should appropriate money or, you know, that has nothing to do with a specific political candidate, that would also fall into this. So if someone created by AI an ad that said the Dorset, budget bill, should never be passed. It's a bad bill. Please listen to me. That could be also so it's an issue and a political candidate, and I'll yield to certainly counsel if I'm misspeaking.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hello. Rick Siegel with the office of the legislative council. Example, I use his orange Schwartz's neighbor. My name used to be a candidate. He's no longer. Right? So if he went on the air, people still listen to him or not, but if he went on the air and he made AII, he was Carl Schwarzenegger and he endorsed VL or that violin, that would be included in the senate proposal. The house version had to be a candidate. Not the candidate that's necessarily on the ballot, that it was open to interpretation. So now the word individual is not open to interpretation.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It could be any individual. Understood. Right at Waters Evans.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So it can be any individual who's in that who's used in that synthetic media, but it still has to pertain to an election. Correct. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Including the public question. That's that's understandable. Right. Any valid item. Right.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Understood. Okay. And, again, not to take sides. I understand that the more restrictive definition likens the chances that it would pass judicial muster in the opinion of a lot of people. The wider you make the definition, the more vague you make it, the less likely it probably is in terms of whether this gets challenged and who decides to, object to it. And I think that kind of an okay way to say it, but

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I turned off my ears just so that Oh,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: okay. Carlos, I he's seen up a question for me once we get

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: you in a hot

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: seat. Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Your committee assistant a copy of the

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, sir.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: So, again, it it changes the definition. The new definition of synthetic media replaces political candidate with individual that match the updated definition of deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. It also removes the exemption or exception of a political candidate consenting to be depicted in a manipulated advertisement. So that's our first change. The second change is, I think, a little bit clearer, is in the accessibility of the actual disclosure, our amendment would propose that the disclosure be made inclusive to the greatest extent possible to people with disabilities. Okay. And that has to do with font sizes and pitch and volume if it's an audio. Okay. And those are the two changes. And, we'll see at probably about 01:15 when we convene on the senate floor whether this is voted up or down on the senate floor. And if it is, it will be, I guess, sent back. And the vote

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: out of your committee was? Five zero zero. Okay. Understood. Going into the way back machine at the end of the last or when you actually, I guess, pre crossover when you sent it, was this a voice vote for your chamber, or did you roll call it?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: I honestly don't remember my recollection. I don't think we wrote both.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I don't think you did either. Yeah. Additional? Yeah. No roll call? Thank you, Robert. Okay. Cool. Just trying to square the peg on sentiments. So, any questions for senator Callamore before we shift over to the esteemed counsel? Nope. Okay. Always a pleasure, sir.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Always. I love this committee.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'll stick around. Alright.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Thank you. Few minutes.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Please. Yourself. Exhibit.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning, counsel. Hey. Good morning. Again, for the record, Rick Siegel with the office of counsel. It's good to be back.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And Let's bring this committee. You sent, you sent an updated copy to our committee assistant? Yes. Is that posted? Thank you. Let us know what it is so we can hit the old refresh button.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would you like me to share my screen or just Go for it. Okay. I'll have to join the Zoom, so it may take the same amount of time to Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The race is on. Let's get a Kelchi going on this one.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Joking Lisa's face does.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Insert eye roll here. Okay.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Here we are.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, sir.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Of course. So you're looking at as the senator said, this is the further proposal amendment as reported by senate senate government operations. It's on second reading today. Did you bump your phone up? Yep.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's working. Now I feel like I'm at the eye doctor. Okay.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it is up for second reading today. Assuming it passed the second reading, third reading, we'd be getting it towards the end of the week. Senator did a great job explaining the two proposals of amendments. The definition change is considerable. It looks innocent, but it's pretty considerable. I walk the committee through what you all did, how you narrowed. You may not remember. It was several years ago, it feels like. Where you narrowed the definition, much to my urging, if I recall, to make the law more constitutional. Because what you're doing is you're regulating speech. Even if you're not banning it, but even if you're requiring a person to put a disclosure on an ad, that is restricting speech. It's like when you make your own advertising for your own campaign, you have to say this is paid for by Kate Nugent. That is also restricting speech, but it is appropriate government restriction. So to keep this appropriate, you wanna make it as narrow as possible. So what the house committee did was said, if it's a political candidate, doesn't matter who it is, Bernie Sanders, Matt Birong, whoever it is, that's gonna be included within the scope of this. And that's fairly narrow. The senate, committee decided to open it up to any individual. As I said, Schwarzenegger, Vladimir Putin, anybody you can think of that is not a current candidate for office would be included in the senate proposal amendment. Does it make it unconstitutional? I'm not a judge. I don't know what a judge is gonna say. What I do have is at least one court decision which took California's similar restriction and issued an injunction because it deemed it a violation of the First Amendment. It's one court in California. Would an appeals court overrule it? Possibly. I can't say for sure, but the reason I walked the committee through that court decision was because that court decision set some principles about the First Amendment. And the things I've talked about in this committee too is when you have a restriction on the First Amendment, you must be really careful because the First Amendment is obviously a, important part about this about this framework of government we have, and you gotta have a really, really good reason to restrict speech. And in this case, so the senate proposal amendment, again expands it to any individual. Your version was candidate. Subdivision A is the same as the House version. I just structured this differently. Injures the reputation of a political candidate. So, if it's Arnold Schwarzenegger doing something that makes representative Birong look bad, right, would that be engender reputation? Depends on how bad is it, right? Or attempts to unduly influence the outcome of an election, which was also in your version of the bill, The senate version adds including a public question. It also clarifies by by providing materially false information to voters. How is materially false, sorry, information defined? So it's not defined. However however, when when lawyers think about that term, if something has been material to a contract or something, it's a substantial influence. Okay? So, if you lie to somebody about the day of the election, election's on Wednesday, November 8, and it's actually Tuesday, November 7, that is materially false information. If you lie to them about the color of the sky on the day of the election, probably not materially false information. It's false, but is it

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: actually materials It's not gonna be relevant to the outcome of what we're trying to

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are you going to change your Are you influenced to an extent that your vote is now changing because of the ad? So, we can define that, but I don't know if you need to. Redwater's ads.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So the senate added this material materially false information first.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right? The house, yes. The house version just said attempts to unduly influence the outcome.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So this is what I'm struggling with. So we already included exceptions for parity and satire, and that still applies in this context. But can you talk a little bit about what it means to say providing materially false information to voters to I know that would have to be something significant, but like you just said, to change the vote. But I guess I'm struggling with this because. Often, I'm not saying I think that it's Okay, but I'm saying often, I mean, all of the campaign materials in effect are trying to influence someone's foot. Right? So, and often people push the truth or say something that maybe pushing the line of being honest or not. But those things are allowed in a campaign because it's part of the process. Can you talk about where that line is, if it exists? Do you know what I'm saying? Do.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do, but I can't.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: You can't. Okay, cool.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can't draw you a line.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Cool, thanks.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's it's I can give you examples, right? Bright line examples, but I can't tell you. Here's where the line is because it gets really gray. Yeah. And then it's up to a judge or jury to determine this is based on all the facts. This specific example, we deem this to be materially false information that is subject to disclosure. So, I wish I could give you a clear rule, there isn't.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: All right. But it's fair to say that adding this language really expands?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, actually, think the changing. Political candidate to individual in one. Yeah, it expanded this. I think it actually narrows it in some ways that before the House version said attempts to unduly the influence excuse me, attempts to unduly influence the outcome of election period. That's what the House version said. The Senate version adds on including a public question, which I think was inferred but, in the house version, but then adding by providing materially false information to voters was added by the senate, which I think actually narrows it a little bit. And that if the ad is silly and just says the sky I keep use using the sky as red or brown, but that's not gonna unduly influence the outcome of an election. But if you say let me give you an example, that if you vote for my opponent, you'll lose thousands of dollars because taxes will go up, whatever. Right? Is that a truly false? Probably not. You know, are you gonna change your vote? Maybe. If you rely on that information, but is it materially false? That's maybe more of an opinion. That's not really true or false. It's hard to prove that true or false, if that makes sense.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: It does.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So yeah, the Senate opened it up and I think not a constitutional way, but then also narrowed it and maybe a better way as far as the constitution speaks.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So. All right. I was going to follow-up and I'm good for now.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was just Stammering.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Just a little glitch. Keep

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: an eye on the for the hand. Okay. Any questions for this chunk from any of the other members? Okay. Alright.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Synthetic media. The change here was to match the definition of deceptive and fraudulent. Synthetic media, changing, the recording of a individual I'm sorry. Political candidates parents to an individual's appearance, so nothing substantive here except at this point. Again, it can be any individual that is depicted, not just a political candidate. The House version had to be a candidate for office. Happy to further explain. Yeah, do that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It does get a little bit more granular on that one.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So synthetic media is used in the definition of, obviously, deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. And the House version, it was the exact same verbiage except on line 18, recording of a political candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct. Because now the Senate version opened it up to any individual who's depicted, we also had to update what synthetic media is by including individuals, not just candidates. The other change is the house version at the end of the sentence, had a comma, so including artificial intelligence, comma, without the consent of the candidate. That was added because if a candidate, agrees to be depicted in an ad, then that it was kind of a a loophole that was closed off, that that would not be against, the statute that if you want someone to make an AI, ad of you, it would be legal. You wouldn't have to do a disclosure because you agreed to be depicted by AI. So that loophole was removed. So you cannot consent away to be depicted in the AI ad. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: apologize in advance if this is a lot of unformed thoughts, but I'm just thinking about how the burden of proof on whether or not speech has an impact is already pretty high, I imagine. So is there a weakness in this bill in that it's calling out elections specifically as the thing that's going to be influenced? Because I'm just trying to imagine how would a judge decide that one ad something changed the course of the election when I'm not really sure that any two people ever agree on that anyway.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're talking about subdivision B, right? It tends to unduly influence outcome. Yeah. I mean, yeah, it's going to be a fact based question. And after looking at the ad or hearing the ad, would a reasonable person have been influenced unduly by this false ad? This is the question, and, you know, it's gonna depend. I wish I can give you a clear rule, but there's not one. And my colleague, Tim Devlin, may chime in if he wants to about election speech. I don't think the government does have more the way to regulate speech when it comes to elections with disclosures and everything else, but doesn't give the government just carte blanche to restrict everything when it comes to election speech. Did I answer your question? It probably doesn't, but that's Yes. Maybe the best answer I can give you now. Yep. Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, I mean, I guess in summary, seems that it it's even though it's expanding it, it's kinda tightening it.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. In some ways, it expands. Yeah. That's I said those Right? Again, think about what you all passed, which was it had to be very limited. It was a depiction of a candidate. Right? Which is limited. That's there's only so many of you, right, that hold office. Now it's anybody in the world that can be depicted in AI that can influence a a election. So that's that's the reason why it's it's more broad. And it's not necessarily unconstitutional, but it's you're getting closer to the line. And, again, my role, I'm not gonna stop anybody from doing anything, but my role is to kinda say, hey. The line, you're approaching it, and I don't know if a court's gonna be okay with this. But in the other way, mister chair, is that you've narrowed the or the senate has narrowed the, influencing the outcome of election by clarifying it must be materially false information. So,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: how does that process play out if somebody challenges materially false?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, somebody makes an ad, right, that uses someone, an AI somebody, and that ad, causes someone the example is the Joe Biden robocall. Right? That that is the common example. It was not Joe Biden. It was a robo AI, Joe Biden, that was calling people in New Hampshire, telling them not to vote in the election Correct. Because it was I can't remember why, but Different day. Yeah. Gave them a different day. Yeah. That was the date Right. Tunnel. Yeah. That's a pretty clear one. Right? That's that is you are attempting to unduly influence the outcome of an election. That's pretty cut and dry. And it's materially false. You're literally saying it's the wrong day. Right? And that's maybe the extreme on one end as to what this law would prevent or protect against that you would need a disclosure. It's not even banning that. It was said you would need to put a disclosure. This is, you know, it's created by AI, whatever, but I forget the exact verbiage, but there are verbiage in here. So that is a clear one, but as far as examples in between that are gonna be would a reasonable person have been influenced by this? Is this such a false statement that you you would maybe either not vote and change your vote, or you rely on it to do something that's not right, or that's not accurate?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Diane? Yes. Okay.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So. Would the voter herself have to be the one who is like, wait a second, I was unduly influenced by these materially false information? Or could it be like an organization saying this was this video was intentionally misleading, and now we're going to. There because it's a civil, not a criminal.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Penalty. Yes.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's civil, but it's a penalty. It's not a cause of action. You as a candidate can has a right of action in this, but a voter does not. So the state's attorney, the AG, would represent the state saying that this statement, voters likely relied on this ad that you made that was deceptive, you know, that x y z, and we're going to fine you a thousand dollars or, you know, there's the penalty section. That didn't change. So we have set we have set of fines and we have enforcement. And, yes, let me make sure a candidate whose appearance speech conduct is misrepresented, may seek injunctive or other relief. So, you as the candidate, if you're depicted by AI, you can request to the court request the ad be taken down, the person that made the ad take it down, not run it. Okay. Those are your two actions. Is the state saying don't do this penalty or the candidate harmed going to court saying that please take it down. This is ruining my reputation.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: If if we were to so if if we concurred with the senate's changes and we expanded it from a candidate to any individual, would we have to change Would it make sense? Or would it be a common practice to change the penalty to apply to any individual or the candidate who's harmed? Because then it seems like if it was only the candidate in the penalty section, then one would cancel like it would cancel each other out or not apply. Do you see?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do see.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'm just wondering if how that works.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You wouldn't have to. Because what what what you're what this bill is getting at is just defamation in different words. Right? Somebody's being defamed, which is already a cause of action in every state. If you're defamed, you can sue the person that defamed you. So in this case, the political candidate's been defamed. Although it's not even using the word defamed, it's misrepresented, which is not defamation. So, would not add individual. I think that weakens the constitutionality because our enforcement agent would come in and say, you made an ad about me that made me look really skinny. I'm not skinny, Super buff. Right? So, I'm going sue you. That's not a cause that that is not a first amendment. I think I think that would

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: be protected by the person.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. That's why I was trying to make sure that we weren't going to be like, opening that up

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for like, as person looking skinny.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm going to go need that

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as a first amendment, right? That we all have. Okay. Photoshoping.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: With the California law in place, we might have talked about this last year. Has there been an election cycle since that's been up and running?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's in there's an injunction. That law is not in effect.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, that's right. That's right.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But other states, there's, 26 states where it is in effect. Okay. So, again, I use California as an example, but other states has not been challenged.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Minnesota, Texas have bans on their ads, which is one way to do it. But those have not been challenged, and I would imagine they would fail if they get count get challenged. So to answer your question, yes. Other states have gone through cycles with their laws in place. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for council right now? I mean, we I wanna have a conversation with the bigger body mass committee president. I do realize that we have two folks digitally on the screen. Anybody on screen have questions? I can't see your hands. Just feel free to speak up for Yeah. There we go. Yeah. Repstone, it's all you.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: No. I don't have any questions. All as well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Just wanted to check-in with you guys in the digital table. Okay. Well, let's have a we'll discuss this, again as a committee in a little while. I just wanted the time to, like, run through this right now to get the understanding so we could marinate on it and make an informed decision. Do you anything further down?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's just the other instance of amendment. I know we focused on definition.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I thought that was two.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The two definitions, the other two are not as constitutionally problematic,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: adding Thank you, sir.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Add adding in, you may remember that this committee, made the disclosure if it's a video or image be easily readable by the average viewer. If it's audio, shall be clearly spoken and can be heard by the average listener, the Senate Government Operations Committee added and inclusive to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities. That was a tough one because understanding the desire to have people with

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: disabilities be able to hear

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or see however thought it was possible if you can't see, how do you see an image that has a disclosure? So the decision was to just use greatest extent possible, which could be, some type of link on the image or video or some other way to allow people disabilities to hear or see the disclosure.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. So and, yes, rep Hooper, do see your hand, but one moment. So with something like the text, the so that would be, like, increasing font sizes, giving it a more prominent placement within the ad itself. Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To the greatest extent possible. That's kind of a squishy term. Yeah. That seems very subjective. Yeah. It is. Representative Hooper of Burlington.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: To that last point, yeah, that's one of the things we're seeing, I think, with the gambling bill is that you have to have the eyes of a 16 year old to read the disclosure. But is there anything in this history or proposal that would prevent a remedy being that it's sort of like once the video is out there, once the impression has been made, you can find somebody as much as you want, but they've already accomplished their goal. Can you basically say you will go back and confess during the same sort of way that you offended? Put up an ad that basically says, oops, we goofed intentionally or not, you know, reparation sort of thing.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So my understanding of the question is if you are subject to some type of court proceeding penalty and you're asked to remove a video or image or audio ad, can you also be asked to place an updated for a new image video audio ad saying that you violated the law.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Yeah. Basically, take responsibility for your actions and try to wipe it away. I I mean, nobody is gonna say, oh, they could fined a thousand bucks for something, but I already saw it. So there. So

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not in this bill, the the the attorney general's office or state's attorney can institute any appropriate action. So they can ask the court to have the person like, if it's a really egregious case, like this video was seen by a 100,000 people, maybe that's an example where they would have to create a new ad saying this was AI generated, but it would be up to a court to grant that action. I don't know if wanna put that in the statute. You could. Actually, line item.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Well, I mean, I was just looking for sort of an equivalent penalty to the damage that you caused. But, yeah, I understand court's decision. That's it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for this part?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the other sorry. The other change yeah. I I went over both of them is the audio and Yeah. The audio. Yep. Same language to the greatest extent possible. How do you enhance visual? How do you enhance visual? Yeah. Like, what would that look like? You provide, again, some kind of link, some kind of accessibility option. You know, many websites have ways for you to hear an image. Like, you click on it, it'll tell you what it is. Yeah. Alright.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Questions?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. Alright. Yeah. Everybody marinate on this one a little bit. We'll chitchat about it more soon. They're just obviously, as senator Callamore stated, it's on the floor today. So they voted today. We would see it over here, So I just wanted to get this out in front of us early knowing it was coming. So we'll talk about it again once we have the bill in hand. Council, thank you. Yeah, thank you. We will reconvene at eleven for a security briefing. Dick, feel free to take us off.