Committee finds Greer amendment to ban sale of sensitive data unfavorable, holds S.71 to the floor

The Vermont House Commerce & Economic Development Committee debated an amendment to S.71 on May 26 that would remove the bill’s requirement that consumers opt in before the sale of sensitive personal information, including consumer health data. Representative Greer presented the amendment and said the change was driven by concerns that consent as currently structured is not truly informed or transparent.

"I don't think people are truly consenting when they agree to give their information over to a company that plans to use it for purposes that they are not, you know, being transparent about," Representative Greer said in explaining the amendment.

Rick Sele of legislative counsel explained that the amendment would affect two places in S.71: the data‑minimization section (identified in the hearing as 2415B) and the consumer health data section (2415K). Sele said the amendment would strike the phrase "unless the consumer has provided consent," which he described as functioning as an opt‑in, and that removing it would amount to a ban on sale of sensitive data in the affected provisions.

"You could just ban the sale of consumer health data and not sensitive data," Sele said, noting the committee could decide to treat the two provisions together or separately, "but because consumer health data is also sensitive data it would be confusing to take inconsistent approaches."

Committee members split on policy and political strategy. Supporters said consumers frequently do not see or understand how companies use or sell their location, gender identity or immigration‑status data and that an outright ban on sales would address a key public concern. One member who supported stronger protections cited news reports about apps and third‑party brokers selling location data without clear consumer notice.

Opponents and more pragmatic members warned that adopting the amendment could jeopardize passage of the overall data‑privacy bill this session. Several members expressed sympathy for stronger restrictions but said Vermont may need a more incremental approach to ensure the bill reaches law this year.

Members also raised concerns about unintended consequences for nonprofits and service providers. One committee member said some nonprofit organizations use targeted data‑sharing to connect marginalized people to services and worried that an across‑the‑board ban could reduce those service pathways.

The committee took a show‑of‑hands vote on whether it found the amendment favorable. The clerk recorded the result in the hearing as "92 unfavorable." The committee did not adopt the amendment and held the matter back to the floor for further action.

The committee’s action leaves S.71 advancing in its current form from committee, with members indicating they intend to pursue stronger or narrower protections in future legislative work if passage this year is to be preserved.