Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know I'm live. Welcome back to Summit Development Housing and General Affairs. We are now shifting our attention to one of our consumer protection bills, genetic data privacy. And we left this after a very robust conversation the other day. And I believe our legislative council has some new language for us to consider. So after our discussion yesterday, I believe I'm understanding from this committee, and I know we're just saying one member. Thomas, are you with us? Yes. Yes. Good. Good. Great. So after listening to the discussion yesterday, our legislative council, we've been working on a compromise. We're trying to find some middle ground here on and looking at it for a period. And, Rick, would you be kind enough to share what, this proposal would look like?
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So good morning. Rick Siegel with the Office of legislative council. So, I have draft 2.1 of the committee amendment to h six thirty nine as passed by the house. And what I heard yesterday was the committee wanted two options, as far as a this is all kind of about the Consumer Protection Act aspect of the private right of action. So there are now two instances of amendment in this bill amendment. The first states the same, the genetic removing biometric data, that is unchanged from yesterday's testimony. The new edition is at the bottom, the second instance of amendment. So you may recall that enforcement is through the AG under the Consumer Protection Act. Adding a subsection c to that enforcement section I did walk through a fifteen day cure period yesterday that was limited in scope. What you see here is not limited scope. This cure period would be for any alleged violation subchapter. That could be selling your genetic data, that could be storing it outside The US. Whatever violates this bill, there would be a sixty day cure period. That is one option y'all have, and that's kind of the one end, right, where any violation, consumer must write to the business and say, hey, I think you sold my data, or hey, you didn't give me a privacy policy, you have sixty days to cure, then I can sue you, right?
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the option you see on the screen. I can read that language, but that's that's what it says. The other option yesterday was a fifteen day cure cure period for certain violations, alleged violations of the act, which would be Right. So it's there. Yeah. Privacy policy. I have to look at it.
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: What do we mean by narrow?
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I can explain that. Specific to genetic data.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the bill has a lot of requirements on these genetic testing companies, right? They cannot
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The whole bill is supposed to be specific genetic I'm sorry?
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: The whole bill is supposed to be specific to genetic data. Data.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But your question is what is the narrowing, right? Yeah. Okay. The narrowing, we're talking about the cure-
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're talking about this cure We're talking about
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: 2.1 from ADAF?
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. So again, the act requires geneticist companies to do certain things, right? They have certain policies they must carry out. A violation of that of this bill would fall under the Consumer Protection Act, which allows aging enforcement, which, by the way, does not have a cure for it because it's just for the consumer, private action. However, this amendment you see on the screen would get would require a sixty day notice for the consumer to write to the business saying, hey. I believe you violated something in this act. X y z, whatever it is, you have sixty days to cure. If you don't cure in sixty days, I could file a lawsuit against you as a But
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it gives the company an opportunity, gives industry an opportunity to cure, which my understanding from our discussion yesterday was that the industry was okay. This is a lot of language. Right. That's the what we're looking at.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So yesterday, I'm sure you're here. I walked through a different language that the house considered Right. Would have given 15, then one five.
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: Is this what Wyoming
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know why. They have some type of curative request. I don't
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: know This is similar to Wyoming, I believe, because it's open. Bridget can confirm that. I mean, I think we can.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's really a policy choice at this point. You have the law that applies to direct consumer, genetic testing companies. It depends on how you want to enforce biofiche, alleged biofiche. You want to get a cure, that's one thing, but you Or the opportunity for a cure. Right. And how long should that cure be? And how Right. Why
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: talked about a thirty day cure period, sixty day cure period. Keeping the cure a little more focused than this. This is a wide open cure Yes. For anything. Yep. And this has worked so far as we understand it in Wyoming. It would be great to find out.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And sorry. Send her a don't know if you can see that or not.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I can see I can But that's okay. Thomas, what's your question?
[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thank you. So I I this is the first time I've really wrestled with a cure period. Could you tell me more about normalizing this? Is this a common practice? What does a cure period mean to you, Rick?
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't speak to it's not common in Vermont, but I don't know, senator Chittenden, you know, nationwide it might be. What it means to me is that the consumer, you know, just has another step in the process. It's I don't think it's unheard of to require a consumer to allow a business the opportunity to cure. I think a lot of times this happens informally where a consumer reaches out, Hey, you sold me a limit card, right? Can you give my money back or take the card back, whatever? And there's no lawsuit filed because you settled it, right? This requires the parties to communicate before a lawsuit is filed.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which I can't I'll make Todd Daley's gonna speak to the national landscape. I don't know.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Todd, do you like to weigh in? Thomas's question.
[Todd Naylor (Assistant Attorney General)]: Sure. Todd Naylor's Assistant Attorney General, I think Ledge Counsel just said, and this is our experience, Vermont doesn't have any cure periods, in consumer law. It is certainly our practice when we engage with a complaint, the target of that complaint, we usually engage in some kind of informal process before entering into litigation. Of course, it depends on the size and scope of the party that we're looking at. Nationally, think this is a trend that we're seeing, but lots of different states operate differently in the consumer protection area, providing these businesses with additional time. I mean, as Rick said, that's essentially what it's doing. It's requiring the consumer to take an additional step and giving the business an opportunity to respond.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It protects consumers, but it gives industry an opportunity to fix the problem. I is that fair?
[Todd Naylor (Assistant Attorney General)]: That's the arc.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I think that that is what we're that's what industry asked for. We're looking at a compromise here. This is a compromise I believe Bridget and others have been okay with. It gives people an opportunity to fix the problem and also then have a remedy for the consumer if necessary. Bridget, do you wanna wait?
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: Sure. Bridget Morris, Smart Strategies on behalf of ancestry.com. Certainly on preferences, no PRA, but if in the spirit of compromise, yes, it would be we want to ensure that it stays for sixty days and then
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it covers the whole bill. Right. And sky has a volunated water rate? Correct. Right. Right. Which one on each year period? Sixty days.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sixty
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: days. Very similar. I don't I I don't know if it's word for word, but it's what we had submitted. I
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think this is what we've worked on. So I think this is a path going forward. We can think about it over the weekend. We are missing David, so he isn't having the opportunity to see this. And we're all seeing it for the first time. And so I think Thomas, you have another question?
[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: No. Thank you, though.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I mean, this you know, it is it it it's an opportunity to on both sides that we maintain and that we give an opportunity for fixing the problem, hopefully, before it has to go any further.
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: But I I mean, I think it would be be good to hear from all of the members of of the committee. Yep. Well, I the only thing I'm comfortable with is a sixty day cure period. And Well,
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm glad you're comfortable with it. That's good. That's what it was designed to do, is to try and help get us to, yes, as a committee. So I'm hoping we'll
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: be able answer that the other way, closest to somebody who goes back to the house, change it to fifteen days or two days. We
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: can't control that. We will We just have to recognize the risk. We have to recognize the risk and we will send, we will negotiate it as strongly as we are. And we have done very well in our negotiations thus far. They have not moved our debt privacy bill. We're They are in the process of doing it, and I cannot make decisions. I have a much tighter time frame. I'm sorry, but I have a tighter time frame. We have a tighter time frame in this committee than they have. We've been given May 8 as our deadline to get all these bills out. That is my job. That's my job from the pro chairman from leadership to get the bills out of here by May 8. That is what I'm intending to do. So I think we have a compromise on this that I'm willing to work with and think about. I am a very strong private right of action person. So for me, this is a big compromise. I am willing to go here, and I'm hoping that the rest of the committee can go here as well. So we will think about it over the weekend. We will revisit this again next week. And I just because next week is what I need to straighten out
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: my dates. So we've been given a time frame of May 8. Correct. The usually the entire legislature lives with the time frame for which the morning money committee I mean, the morning policy committees can no longer meet and
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: What's that about with Phil? I I mean, I I Okay. Do you I am in this this is the requirement the pro tem has given for morning.
[Bridget Morris (Smart Strategies, on behalf of Ancestry.com)]: So we have to get it out by May 8 is what you're
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: saying. Right. We have to get all our bills out, and I can't, but we also have to see what we're capable of also dealing with on the floor at that point too. So we are that is our deadline, and that is the deadline I'm working against and Right. With everybody here and all the bills that we have. So we're not gonna hold all our bills hostage till May 8 because we have to report them, and we have to do that work. So thank you. Thank you, Rick. Anything else? I think that was the big issue of what?
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't I have not heard any other recommendations for changes.
[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Todd, anything else to add? Okay. Thomas, you okay to think about this over the weekend? Great. Terrific. And we will Rick, if we could take some time for David Weeks, we'll chat about I will chat about David as well. Great. Terrific. So we're gonna take a fifteen minute break, and then we're gonna come on at 10:30 with Cameron, back with Cameron, to address landlord tenant issues in here.