Representative Angela urges statewide EdTech registry to protect student data and assess effectiveness

Representative Angela, identified on the record as a senior representative from Williston and a co‑lead sponsor of H.650, testified that H.650 would add a few fields to existing Secretary of State business registration forms so companies offering education‑technology products can be identified and tracked.

"We have to know and understand the universe of products and businesses operating in this space in order to enforce existing consumer protection laws," Representative Angela said, arguing the registry would support enforcement of state and federal law, including student‑data protections. She told the committee the intent is to cast a wide net that would include AI tools.

The bill, originally introduced in a commerce context as a consumer‑protection measure, does not require the Agency of Education (AOE) to vet every product. Instead, H.650 asks AOE to report on what criteria it would need to establish for product review and to recommend which state entities should be involved in certification. "The report that's asked for in this bill does not ask the AOE to actually vet the products," Representative Angela said; rather, the agency should identify what would be required to set up a process.

Committee members asked how the registry would handle free, no‑contract products commonly used in classrooms (for example, Khan Academy or Duolingo) and whether hardware such as Chromebooks would be captured. Representative Angela said the registry would rely on businesses' existing obligation to register with the Secretary of State and that the office would add fields to allow entities to declare themselves EdTech providers and list products. She acknowledged gaps in current practice—some products that are widely used may not appear in the database if companies or services are not properly registered.

The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly raised two related concerns: that many student‑data privacy agreements are negotiated with industry participation and are sometimes violated, and that efficacy (whether products actually improve learning) is not addressed by privacy agreements. "If our kids are just being used as data farms, I don't care how solid the product is," Representative Angela said.

The committee heard references to recent litigation and industry actions: an EdTech legal group on the witness list, the EdTech Law Center, and a recent appellate ruling cited in testimony indicating limits on schools’ ability to bind parental consent in certain privacy agreements. The sponsor also cited an industry size estimate raised in testimony and said some schools report using hundreds to thousands of apps; the transcript quoted "over 3,000 different apps" in some local deployments. Those figures were presented as testimony and not presented as independent verification in committee.

No formal votes were taken on H.650 during this session. The committee directed staff to continue scheduling witnesses, including the Secretary of State's office, AOE representatives and tech‑policy groups, and to consider amendments that would clarify enforcement roles and how free or no‑contract products are captured.

Next steps: sponsor representatives signaled interest in amendments (including a separate opt‑out bill, H.830, noted in testimony) and the committee expected additional witnesses from the Secretary of State and AOE at a future hearing.