Vermont's Priestley Sees Growing Momentum for Comprehensive Privacy Bill
Vermont Rep. Monique Priestley (D) will push again for comprehensive privacy legislation -- and probably one of two data broker bills -- when the legislature returns Jan. 8, she said in an interview last week with Privacy Daily. A series of town halls yielded much public excitement for privacy protections and potential new support from small businesses next year, said Priestley, who also will be running for state senator in 2026 (see 2510290024).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
On May 30, as Vermont’s 2025 legislative session neared its end, Priestley posted an amended version of S-71, her comprehensive privacy bill, with a plan of trying to advance it in 2026 (see 2505300047). The amendment to S-71 reset the Senate-passed bill, which contained language that industry favored, to something more like Priestley’s original 2025 legislation that included controversial private right of action and data-minimization requirements.
One change from Priestley’s original was that the new version no longer includes a year-by-year step down in applicability thresholds, which would have expanded how many businesses are covered by the proposed law one or two years after it takes effect. Among other changes, the amended bill’s proposed private right of action would only allow individuals to sue companies with annual revenue of $500 million or more, a significant increase from the $25 million threshold in Priestley’s original legislation.
Priestley told us she had asked House leaders to pause the bill so that she could hold town halls across Vermont during the legislative break, in a series dubbed “The People vs Big Tech.” The state rep hosted five so far and plans to do another five by year-end. “We actually got requests for 25 additional towns,” so there could be some more in early 2026, added Priestley.
“I wasn’t sure if people [would] show up” or “care.” But people came -- and they stayed for the entire 90 minutes planned, she said. People are angry and scared “in a way that they weren't in 2024,” said the Democrat, who attributed that to seeing the federal government “abuse people’s privacy” and “the connection to Big Tech.” People “understand the concepts of how privacy connects to daily lives in a way that they … weren’t expressing to us a year ago.”
Priestley didn’t see opponents from industry at the town halls. “We had several lobbyists [register who] … I would probably classify as opposition,” she added, “but then they didn't show up.” However, the lawmaker met some lobbyists for potential new supporters, including small Vermont software businesses, she said.
“I am feeling optimistic and pleasantly surprised at the number of people who are watching now” and are “invested in a strong privacy bill passing.” Also, while no state has passed a comprehensive privacy bill with a private right of action, Priestley said she heard feedback from some stakeholders that the thresholds she added to her bill’s PRA have made it more palatable.
It could also help that 2026 is an election year, said the state rep: Legislators, regardless of political parties, “are hearing from constituents that [privacy] is something they're concerned about in a way that they haven't in the past, so I do think it'll play out in the elections.”
In terms of the legislative process for 2026, S-71 next needs approval by the Vermont House Commerce Committee, then the full House. If the House passes the amended bill, it will have to go back to the other chamber for senators to consider the changes.
Data Broker Legislation
Priestley said she’s not sure which of her two data broker bills will be prioritized next year -- Vermont’s version of the California Delete Act (H-211) or its iteration of New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law (H-342). “Definitely a data broker bill is a priority; I'm just not sure which one that ends up being.”
If Vermont passes a Delete Act, sharing the accessible deletion mechanism that’s under development in California is “totally a possibility,” so long as the Vermont attorney general and California officials are open to it, Priestley said.
California Privacy and Protection Agency officials have said they would share the Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP) with other states (see 2511100015). Connecticut might also share DROP if it passes a Delete Act next year, Sen. James Maroney (D) said in October on a podcast (see 2510220015).
Priestley expressed confidence she “will figure out how to balance” pushing for her privacy bills at the same time as running a campaign for state senator. While this summer’s town halls were not part of her campaign, it was “refreshing to see that … I am addressing issues that Vermonters actually do care about.”
Joining the Senate could make it easier to pass her legislation, said Priestley. “One of the one of the primary reasons that I'm running is that we could only get bills so far.” Given “the power dynamics in the Senate,” she said, “I think I have to be there in order to … fully lean in to help get these bills over the finish line.”