An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance
What changed between versions
Applicability thresholds changed from 25,000 consumers (or 12,500 with over 25 percent revenue from data sales) to three new tiers: 35,000 consumers for general personal data, 3,000 consumers for sensitive data, or 3,000 consumers whose data is offered for sale. Payment-transaction-only data is now excluded from all thresholds.
A new 'controlling law' provision states that in any conflict between this subchapter and other laws (including the Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code Act), the law providing the greatest protection for consumer privacy rights controls.
The HIPAA exemption was restructured from a blanket exclusion of 'protected health information under HIPAA' to more specific exclusions: covered entities that are not hybrid entities, health care components of hybrid entities, and business associates. This narrows the exemption's scope.
The consent definition was substantially simplified, removing detailed requirements about clear and conspicuous disclosure, description of processing purpose, distinguishing between acts, stating data categories, and accessibility to consumers with disabilities. It now only requires a 'clear affirmative act signifying a consumer's freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous agreement.'
The sensitive data category was significantly narrowed. Removed items include income level or indebtedness, union membership, status as victim of a crime, tax return information, keystrokes, driving behavior, and cross-device online activity tracking. Added 'sex life' and 'status as nonbinary or transgender.'
Targeted advertising was completely redefined to focus on cross-site and cross-application tracking (personal data obtained from nonaffiliated websites or applications to predict preferences), replacing the broader prior definition. New exclusions cover own-website activity, current search context, consumer requests, and measurement-only processing.
Precise geolocation data radius was reduced from 1,850 feet to 1,750 feet, and the definition was reworded to focus on 'directly identifies the specific location' rather than 'reveals the past or present physical location.'
The consumer exclusion was expanded to include individuals acting in an 'employment context' and as an 'employee,' broadening who is excluded from consumer protections.
New definitions added for 'collect/collected/collection,' 'derived data,' 'pseudonymous data,' 'nonprofit organization,' and 'person.'
Several definitions were removed entirely: 'contextual advertising,' 'large data holder' (100,000 consumer threshold), 'marketing measurement,' 'unique persistent identifier,' 'victim services organization,' 'independent trust company,' 'investment adviser,' 'qualified service organization,' and 'health care component.'
Neural data was redefined from 'information collected through biosensors that could be processed to infer or predict mental states' to 'any information generated by measuring the activity of an individual's central nervous system,' which is broader in scope.
The processor definition now includes 'collects or processes' (previously only 'processes') and removed federal, state, tribal, or local government entities as a category of entity on whose behalf processing can occur.
The biometric data definition changed from data that 'allow or confirm the unique identification of the consumer' to data 'collected on or used to identify a specific consumer,' shifting the focus from capability to actual use.
The gender-affirming health data definition was simplified, removing detailed sub-categories about precise geolocation for accessing services, research efforts, and data derived from nonhealth information.
The 'sale of personal data' definition changed from exchange 'to a third party' to exchange 'with a third party,' and the consent-based disclosure exclusion was reworded to remove the phrase 'with the consumer's consent.'
The deidentified data provision now requires recipients to 'comply with all provisions of this subchapter' rather than merely satisfying the specific deidentification criteria, imposing a broader obligation on downstream recipients.