By Lisa Rathke
Vermont's governor has vetoed a broad data privacy bill that would have been one of the strongest in the country to crack down on companies' use of online personal data by letting consumers file civil lawsuits against companies that break certain privacy rules.
Republican Gov. Phil Scott said in his veto message late Thursday that the legislation would have made Vermont "a national outlier and more hostile than any other state to many businesses and non-profits."
"I appreciate this provision is narrow in its impact, but it will still negatively impact mid-sized employers, and is generating significant fear and concern among many small businesses," he wrote.
The legislation would have prohibited the sale of sensitive data, such as social security and driver's license numbers, as well as financial information and health data. It also would have set meaningful limits on the amount of personal data that companies can collect and use, according to the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center based in Washington, D.C.
The Democrat-controlled Legislature plans to override the governor's veto when it meets for a special session on Monday. The bill passed 139-3 in the House and a flurry of amendments were made in the final days of the session.
"Our collective efforts brought forth legislation that not only reflects our commitment to consumer protection from scams and identity theft but also sets a standard for the nation," House Speaker Jill Krowinski, a Democrat, said in a statement. "It is unfortunate that so much misinformation has been spread about this bill, but we know that Big Tech and their deep pockets are fearful of no longer having unrestricted access to Vermonters' personal information."
More than a dozen states have comprehensive data privacy laws. When the Vermont legislature passed the bill, Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director of EPIC, said the legislation was "among the strongest, if not the strongest" in the country. EPIC is urging the Legislature to override the governor's veto.
"The Vermont Data Privacy Act would have provided Vermonters with meaningful privacy rights that are lacking from other state laws, and would have rightly provided them with the opportunity to enforce those rights," Fitzgerald said in a statement.
Scott said he also had concerns about the provision aimed at protecting children, saying that similar legislation in California "has already been stopped by the courts for likely First Amendment violations" and the state should await the outcome of that case.
The Vermont Kids Code Coalition said the legislation is different than California's and is constitutionally sound.
Much of the legislation would have gone into effect in 2025. The ability for consumers to sue would have happened in 2027 and expired in 2029, with a study to look at its effectiveness and risks.
Lisa Rathke is an AP writer
Harvey Weinstein hit with new sex crime charge in New York
Harvey Weinstein pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a new sex crime charge in New York, as he awaits retrial in his landmark #MeToo case.
Details of the new allegations were not immediately available. He was charged with committing a criminal sex act.
The jailed ex-movie mogul has long maintained that any sexual activity was consensual.
Prosecutors revealed last week that Weinstein had been indicted on additional sex crime charges that weren't part of the case that led to his now-overturned 2020 conviction. But the new indictment was sealed until his arraignment.
Prosecutors have said that the grand jury heard evidence of up to three alleged assaults — two in hotels in the Tribeca neighborhood and one at a lower Manhattan residential building. The purported incidents took place from the mid-2000s to 2016, prosecutors said.
But it's not clear whether any of those allegations underlie the new indictment.
While bracing for the new charges, Weinstein also is awaiting retrial after New York state's highest court this spring overturned his 2020 conviction on rape and sexual assault charges involving two women. The high court, called the Court of Appeals, ordered a new trial, which is tentatively scheduled to begin Nov. 12.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the then-trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against him based on allegations that were not part of the case. That judge's term expired in 2022, and he is no longer on the bench.
Prosecutors have said they'll seek to fold the new charges into the retrial, but Weinstein's lawyers say it should be a separate case.
Weinstein, who also was convicted in 2022 in a Los Angeles rape case, remains behind bars while awaiting his New York retrial.
Weinstein,... Read More