Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Live. All

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: right. Welcome back, folks. A little after 03:00. We are picking up work on h one zero three and acts relating to prohibited practices for services involving veterans benefits. We spoke to this a lot yesterday, and there was some question or looking for some input feedback from the attorney general's office. So we have with us the policy director director of policy and legislative affairs. Mister Ellis,

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: how are you? I'm well, chair. Thank you. So, yes, for the record, Donald Delos, AAG. At the Vermont Attorney General's office, I'm happy to just start with the questions the committee has, if that's the easiest way to go about it. I think our role is is really in that enforcement element. And I know this is a committee that doesn't maybe have as much familiarity with our consumer protection

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Mhmm.

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: Work. So happy to give a high overview or just jump in and respond to questions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Let's do a high overview just for, like, your thoughts with how it's, you know, how the words on the page read to your eyes and your, office's eyes.

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: Absolutely. So, the language in, on page five, which would be both in I think it's what title initially, we're in title 20. The new section seventeen fifty six is just a simple cross reference to the consumer protection act, is nine VSA twenty four fifty three. The act is actually all of chapter 63 within title nine, but that reference, is what identifies, deceptive acts and practices in commerce, which is sort of the crux of consumer protection law. So when we are defending consumers, and it's important that we defend consumers, not consumers. Right? When the attorney general acts, we are acting on behalf of the state, and therefore, we're looking at consumers as understood broadly, not individuals. We don't bring cases on behalf of individuals. So when there's a deceptive active practice of commerce, that provides us the opportunity to go to that business and potentially seek penalties, stop the practices. Sometimes there's restitution available for consumers. Importantly, and this is listed in, that section b of seventeen fifty six, consumers also have their own ability to to vindicate their own rights here. And I think we view that as incredibly important. Our work is on behalf of the state. And as you're well aware, our work is taxpayer funded. It's important when individuals rights are involved in a in in matters like this, when it's about seeking benefits or otherwise, that they have the ability to seek their own protections and and damages. And that's what the Consumer Protection Act does broadly. So that all makes sense to us. I'm happy to kind of reflect on the bill as a whole, but most of those are policy questions that you all are already struggling with, and we don't have a strong policy position on the bill.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. But it just falls into the general provisions governing.

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: It allows us to do investigations. It allows us to seek, as I said, actual damages. It allows us to seek penalties of $10,000 per up to $10,000 per violation. It allows us, yeah, a whole host of of tools that, you know, enable us to work whether the same law under which we're suing Meta, for example, Instagram, or that we may go after a smaller business that has some kind of pattern and practice that's violation of consumer principles, that's unfair in another way, is deceptive in another way. I'm just trying to think of other examples where we may have gone after something else that would be familiar to you all that sits clearly in consumer protection. The ones that are in my head are tobacco related or otherwise. But there's a lot of if you look in chapter 63 or around chapter 63, you'll see there are a lot of areas where the consumer protection act is pulled into or deceptive acts are clarified through bills like this. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Are you aware of, like, any complaints within this, like, scope of concern?

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: Not to my it it is not on sort of the top 10 list of complaints we get. But I'm aware through advocates, I'm aware of this, what the push is here, ensuring that veterans get the benefits that they're afforded. I will say from an enforcement perspective, just one reflection is that the carve out language that's in here, which just caught my eye because I haven't seen many persons carve out from what is a person. It'll be an interesting enforcement environment. Because Think about c? I'm looking sorry. I should orient.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No worries.

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: I'm looking at page one. Oh, no. Let's see. Line twenty twenty one on page two. Just just just carving out a certain category. And I I didn't dig in too deep on that's a policy question that the committee is, no doubt, well aware of. I would just say from an enforcement perspective, we look at it. It would be interesting, right? We could get a complaint. Somebody is seeking something that's prohibited under the act. Maybe they're using a login inappropriately. Maybe they're guaranteeing specific benefits. We investigate because we've gotten multiple complaints about one entity. And then we have to figure out, does the entity fit under this exemption from the law? And there may be great policy reasons for that to be the case. We don't have a position on that. Perhaps don't.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: How would the attorney general's office enforce this against a multi state company operating online? Would it be complaint driven?

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: Yes. Well, I will say it would be complaint driven. And if there are other states that have similar protections, some of our cases arise in a multistate context where there's an actor who may be operating across jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction has a consumer protection act. Some may have this kind of level of specificity, and that would enable a multistate coalition to go forward, which can be a very powerful tool.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for the agency office?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. Do you know what the attorney general support language limiting compensating services exclusively to VA accredited representatives that was brought up yesterday, the question of accreditation?

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: I'm a very visual person, so I'm trying to put that language in here. Where would it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It would have to be something that I think was would be added to because it's not specific about if the entities require accreditation or not.

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: So this would be sort of I mean, generally speaking, I would without I don't think we're going to have a position on that specifically. But I will say generally speaking, accreditation through a verified process is a good consumer protection measure because it's some kind of external licensure or at least approval. The question is just what's the accrediting entity? How rigorous are the standards? And how closely controlled are they?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Rexel, sorry. I have 10 questions.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Keep going. Okay, because I think it's interesting. So in states that have passed similar laws, we heard about some yesterday, Tennessee being one of them is this since modeled after recently passed. Have we seen litigation or unintended consequences that Vermont should be aware of if you were taking a cursory look at this?

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: I could. I did not, in anticipation, but I am happy to look at Tennessee and legal action. I don't know if ledge counsel had a chance to look at that, but see if Sophie has.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any more questions?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I mean, yes, but I think maybe I'll hold them for legislative council.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Policy related questions. So

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: if that's a wrap for the AG's office, you can invite counsel up.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You all.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Questions, I'm not sure it's for Ledge Council, but no, it wasn't for the office. I'm wondering how we ended up in a place where we changed the original language from the bill, because I feel like the original bill was banning this altogether. And now we've ended up at a different place. But it looks like there are other states around here, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maine have all banned this kind of activity. So I'm wondering how we got from what seems to be and there are other states, think it's like Illinois and Iowa and stuff also and some others. So I'm wondering how we got to the place from from banning to. Did not doing that and placing just like some. Other restrictions on it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think the and I'll let the board speak to this being a little bit But my understanding is that there there is a lot of entities out there that are behaving in a predatory fashion. And then some of the other ones were deemed to be navigators that were resource to people trying to figure these things out. And so that was sort of the shift in the perspective was to try and create language that could keep bad actors out the pool, but allow resources when things like the SRO, yes, yes, yes, veteran services or yep, when they sort of can no longer facilitate anything for the veteran's spouse who's seeking the benefit. Or saturation. Saturation, yeah. So, am I answering that cleanly? Anything to add?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No, big piece and a big component of it and then talked it with Mr. Burke is the saturation component of it's an option, but putting guardrails on the options of who can do it, keeping out, because if you like, on Facebook, it's an algorithm, obviously, that must get veterans, because I see them, I won't say all the time, but periodically, you'll see some guy pop up in a T shirt going, hey, you know, veterans, I can help you get x y z. We're trying to get those people out of the mix because they're not they're not good actors. Not I mean, you can't say that writ large, but I'd say for the most part, a lot of those are pretty Yeah. The Pretty good chance they're The potentials there. Yeah. The potential Yeah. The great potential is there. Get people into large monetary in the negative, you know, get gouged for a ton of money because you signed a contract. Now, how would that uphold? Could they go to corporate and, you know, you take a guy or gal that's, you know, maybe not that well-to-do, and it's gonna go, I can't I can't fight this, and I owe $10. Guess I'm not taking out a personal loan. Don't pay these these guys $10. And I'm I that's just an example of what we're trying to get rid of that in that out of the market. It's like a lot of things, you know, there's a lot of algorithms, as anybody that's on Facebook, of various things you could get pinged with, and I know, like I've said, I've been hit with that one multiple times by you could just tell, I mean, like, at least I believe I can tell you that most of these people are shysters. They're just out to see what they can do, which is sad.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I know. Makes me worried for vulnerable people. Sure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So You got somebody that's, you know, paychecked, or maybe not even paycheck to paycheck, and they go out and go, well, I'm looking at this as my last lifeline, and they try it, and then either fail, or they've signed them up, you know, in the fine print for some ungodly sum of money, that's what we're trying to eliminate. I think, I don't know, perhaps it's not to say anybody feels the need to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't want to just keep bringing up my own situation, but after Danny died, I got solicitations, like, I don't even know where they got her name from. It's like, how did they know? But I got postcards, I got these very formal looking letter envelopes, and you open it up and it's like, we can help you, we'll take 5% of what we recover for you. And I was young enough and smart enough to know that there were service officers available. But an elderly lady, five, whatever, they just don't know, and they're not computer knowledgeable, whatever, would probably sign that dotted line and say, sure, help me figure out what my husband was eligible for. And so they're out there, they're like sharks. And like I said, I don't know how they got my name, I still get stuck every once in a while.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're out there. Yeah, there's plenty of folks that would, they have no, there's no bottom to their debts, they'll go to get money or extract money from people, to add to it further, in working with Bob Burke, through the time I've been here, he's a guy that I think has done pretty hard to sell on any deviations from what you would consider probably the norm, if you would, and having is buy in where we're at. He has a huge symbol of spark support. Yeah. He's good. So if he if he would have come back with the we used to call the military the thirty two two suck. Well, know. You know? Then I might have gone let's not go down this path. But that Yes.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. Mister Burke definitely does not pull punches with his Odds too. Yeah. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I mean, to me, that gives credence Yeah. If he's saying, but that's I'm one of 11 here. So Yep. That's my 2¢.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. I want be conscious of time because we do have to get up before. Yeah. Any other questions or comment right now? I mean, we we have this that we scheduled. Do you have anything to speak to?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah,

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: there was a question about Tennessee. I can look and see, but I'm not aware of any litigation that's that's come up in Tennessee. I am aware that there was criticism from some veterans services organizations prior to that bill being passed where they were not happy with it, but I'm not aware of any unintended consequences since then. But I haven't specifically looked. I could look and see

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: there's anything.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Are we going have time for more testimony? This is a really important thing, I just want to make sure that we're prohibiting these bad actors and not just regulating them. Because a lot of these entities have a lot of money and a lot of influence and a lot of lobbying power, I'm just going to say it out loud, and they're smart about skirting around the laws and finding loopholes and creating them, and I want to make sure that we are not allowing that to happen, period.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You just jumped into the next thing I was going to say. Okay. Was you have this scheduled for discussion to vote on Friday. So, what we need to figure out is whether or not we're doing that. Because if we're not doing that this week, I'm gonna schedule something else with that slot. Yeah. Yeah. So what's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the team think? I would be on a no hurry. He died.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'd rather get it right than Russia. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Would like to hear. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. That seems universal consensus. So that will yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Also would like to hear more testimony, but also if we do end up moving forward with this, something for people to think about who are working on this bill is if we can move in this disclosure part, the part that says this service is available free of charge from these other places that that should be at the top of that disclosure and should be prominent. And the first thing that people see when they're looking at that disclosure. That would make me feel comfortable.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, so we are going to take that from the morning schedule. But that also we had made a discussion of possible vote on h six seven, and we had only logged in fifteen minutes for that thinking that we were bringing in, different language. But it seems since we're having a shift in that language that you should allocate more time to that for that morning. Does that make sense?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. Regarding that, I already I believe we are already in the works. We're Moving forward with that, some of help that should be vetted.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do we not need the time on

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thursday afternoon for age six, seven then?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Because we were going

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: to try to squeeze it in before the floor.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Were we just squeezing in a boat?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No, that's not a work on it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We can keep that We'll just put 103, and then we'll keep that open for other moving parts, because there's going to be no shortage of moving parts on Fridays.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Let me just make sure this really works.

[Donald Delos, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office]: You, Council.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And that was at 02:45. Alright.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You need to take us off. We got six minutes before.