The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) expressed concerns over the Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (S. 69) through testimony submitted to Vermont lawmakers this week. The testimony cautioned that the bill's ambiguous requirements and broad range could potentially jeopardize user privacy, free expression, and the sustainability of small businesses.
The purpose of S. 69 is to ensure children’s safety online. However, it extends its reach beyond traditional social media platforms to include any website likely to be accessed by minors. The bill’s unclear standards might leave businesses uncertain about their legal responsibilities, raising the likelihood of excessive content filtering, suppression, and lawsuits.
The CCIA advises Vermont legislators to narrow the scope of S. 69, recommending alignment with federal standards like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. They suggest that businesses should enact protections based on verified user ages rather than assumptions. The Association also warned that widespread age verification processes could compromise privacy, particularly affecting marginalized communities and users whose characteristics might lead to inaccurate age assessments.
Megan Stokes, State Policy Director for CCIA, stated: “We share Vermont legislators’ goal of making the internet safer for young users, but S. 69 raises serious concerns. Vague and sweeping definitions could subject nearly every public-facing website to burdensome new standards, including even small businesses and services that have no direct connection to children. In its attempt to mitigate harm, the bill could lead to excessive filtering, restrict minors’ access to vital educational and community resources, and force companies to collect more personal information through invasive age verification tools."
Stokes further noted: “There’s no one-size-fits-all solution for minors online. A 16-year-old doing research should not be treated the same as a 7-year-old playing a game. Without clear guardrails, S. 69 could do more harm than good, particularly for small businesses and marginalized users.”