As state consumer privacy bills continue to mount, several contain unreasonable demands on merchants aiming to do business in those states. But for now at least, such merchants have dodged a bullet coming out of Vermont. On June 13th, following an aggressive push by a contingent of direct merchants, Gov. Phil Scott vetoed H.121, the consumer privacy bill that had passed out of the Vermont Legislature on May 10.
Then on June 17th, the Vermont House approved the veto override 128-17 following an hour-long floor debate. The Vermont Senate voted to sustain the veto 15-14, which prevents the bill from becoming law.
The bill was loosely modeled after a Connecticut statute that includes pro-consumer provisions, but also includes a prohibition on Private Right of Action (PRA), limiting enforcement to the state attorney general. But Vermont added numerous provisions and amendments including PRA and by the time the bill reached and passed the Legislature in May, it was completely unworkable for New England-based businesses like the Vermont Country Store.
Vermont Country Store CEO Jim Hall (left), who is also Board Chair of the American Commerce Marketing Association (ACMA), galvanized several other Vermont-based direct merchants and the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, to strongly urge Gov. Scott to veto the bill because of the significant, detrimental impacts that would have been caused by elements of the bill.
Hall and his colleagues, as well as the ACMA, a Washington-based advocacy group, will likely be busy with consumer privacy issues next year as Vermont will no doubt revive and contest the failed bill. Hall and the ACMA will continue to advocate for the adoption of the Connecticut consumer privacy language at a state and a federal level.
Where VT Went Awry from CT
The key sticky points with the failed Vermont bill included progressive consumer protections, such as data minimization, which when combined with the private right of action clause, would expose small to mid-size Vermont businesses to becoming targets of for settlements and/or litigation that they cannot afford.
Furthermore, the bill contained an enhanced consent provision, amounting to opt-in browse wrap agreements and invasive pop-ups that customers must agree with to share their data. This extra step decreases the likelihood that customers will complete transactions and would negatively impact sales into Vermont.
What’s more, as fewer customers opt in, compared to the number who opt out of data sharing, this results in much less customer data available to the platforms that help businesses offer curated advertising to their customers.
Below are some other noteworthy facts involved in VT H.121:
- The 105-page bill contains the words “reasonable” or “reasonably” 75 times as part of terms that vaguely define acceptable business practices. While this may be acceptable when enforced by the state attorney general, it is totally unacceptable when coupled with PRA.
- On June 17th, the Vermont Legislature held a “veto session” where it attempted in vain to override Gov. Scott’s veto of H.121.
- The Vermont House approved the veto override 128-17 following an hour-long floor debate.
- The Vermont Senate voted to sustain the veto 15-14, which prevents the bill from becoming law.
- A veto override requires a two-thirds majority in each legislative body. Ninety-seven votes were needed in the House and 20 votes were needed in the Senate to override the veto.
- Seven senators reversed their positions on the issue since the bill’s passage, thanks to vigorous efforts among the Vermont business community to educate them about the significant impacts to small and mid-size businesses.

