Bills: HB3327, HB3711, HB4104, HJR1077, HB3329, SB2184, SB171

Keywords: State Board of Education, Oklahoma education board, board appointments, school governance, education reform, governor appointments, legislative appointments, speaker of the house, president pro tempore, senate confirmation, board vacancies, removal for cause, public education, state superintendent, school board training, board member qualifications, emergency clause, Oklahoma statutes 70 O.S. 3-101, school funding, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• FBI data shows Arizona officers were shot at nearly 200 times in 2023, one of the nation's highest rates
• And so she's really threatening to move against, you know, data centers and different things like that
• As Representative Lopez stated, there is no data that we've seen that shows that individuals are more
• a motor vehicle to include conduct in which a person watches, records, or streams any video-based data
• such device, even if... ...conduct in which a person watches, records, or streams any video-based data

Bills: HB2109, HB2168, HB2198, HB2226, HB2415, HB2440, HB2665, HB2805, HB2811, HB2825, HB2857, HB2874, HB2966, HB4067, HB4117, HCR2001, HCR2016, HCR2051

Keywords: distracted driving, portable wireless communication devices, motorcycles, traffic safety, civil penalties, public nuisance, nuisance abatement, abatement action, injunction, superior court, attorney general, county attorney, city attorney, board of supervisors, obscenity, obscene materials, adult materials, pornography, schools, parks

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and announced several bills would be held at the sponsors’ request, including HB 4117, HCR 2016, HCR 2051, and HB 2415. It then took up HB 2811, which would expand obstructing governmental operations to include knowingly interfering with a lawful arrest and make that conduct a felony. Supporters, including a county attorney representative, argued the bill closes a loophole and protects officers from third-party interference during arrests, while opponents from criminal justice and civil liberties groups said existing laws already cover the conduct and warned the bill could chill First Amendment activity such as filming police or protesting. The committee debated whether the bill duplicated resisting arrest and hindering prosecution statutes, then passed HB 2811 on a 3-2 vote with one member not voting. The committee next heard HB 2665, which would create a manslaughter offense for an adult who intentionally gives advice or encouragement through a directed communication to a minor to die by suicide, including via social media or text. Representative Carter and family members of suicide victims described the bill as a response to online encouragement and a way to hold people accountable when minors are clearly urged toward suicide. The committee then passed HB 2665 unanimously, 6-0 with one not voting. It also approved HB 2857, allowing the Department of Corrections to store inmate medical records electronically and dispose of paper copies, by a 5-1 vote. The committee then passed HB 2226, which requires courts to ask about veteran status at initial appearance, notify prosecutors, and connect veterans to services and possible treatment court referrals; an amendment shifted the service-notice duty from prosecutors to the court. Supporters said the bill helps identify veterans with PTSD or other needs and can reduce recidivism, and it passed 6-0. HB 2168, which would require county board approval before the Attorney General could bring a public nuisance action in superior court, drew sharp disagreement over the AG’s use of nuisance litigation against businesses such as dairies, industrial plants, and rail projects; supporters framed it as local control and opposition to overreach, while opponents said it would weaken accountability and protect corporate interests. The committee passed HB 2168 on a 3-2 vote with two not voting. Finally, the committee heard HB 2966, which would bar early termination of lifetime probation for dangerous crimes against children and apply that restriction retroactively. Supporters argued it would keep serious child offenders on supervision and protect victims, while opponents, including survivors and defense advocates, said DCAC is a sentencing enhancement rather than a standalone offense, that the bill removes judicial discretion, may raise ex post facto concerns, and could sweep in lower-level online conduct. The bill passed 4-2 with one not voting. The committee then began hearing HCR 2001, a voter referral to end early voting the Friday before Election Day, require government-issued ID for voting, and restrict mail ballot procedures; the sponsor said it would improve election integrity and speed results, while opponents argued it would burden voters and reduce access. The transcript cuts off during testimony and debate on that measure.

Bills: HB3765, HB4324, HB3678, HB4170, HB3495, HB3040, HB3062, HB4140, HB4106, HB4109, HB4104, HB3581

Keywords: property rights, forfeiture, noncitizen, land ownership, felony, public safety, criminal procedure, sentence modification, resentencing, judicial review, postconviction relief, district attorney, prosecutor, victim rights, victim notification, Department of Corrections, inmate rehabilitation, sentencing reform, life without parole, nonviolent offense

Bills: HB10, HB33, HB35, HB42, HB74, HB102, HB107, HB10, HB33, HB35, HB42, HB74, HB102, HB107

Keywords: body-worn cameras, dashboard cameras, law enforcement, public disclosure, investigation, transparency, juveniles, nonviolent offenses, intervention program, juvenile detention, youth services, volunteer firefighters, cancer compensation, death benefits, line of duty, first responders, bail reform, cash deposit, judicial discretion, criminal justice

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Transcript Highlights:

• the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act.
• Consumer Data Privacy Act, H78, and the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, H-104.
• Consumer Data Privacy Act, H78, and Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, H-104.
• Location privacy is not just a data privacy issue.
• of comprehensive data privacy.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a package of Massachusetts privacy and technology bills, especially measures to ban the sale of location data, establish a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and regulate biometric recognition and surveillance pricing. Chairs and sponsors argued that self-regulation has failed, that data brokers and large tech companies routinely collect and monetize sensitive information, and that state action is needed because federal protections are weak or absent. Several speakers tied the bills to reproductive health, gender-affirming care, domestic violence, children’s data, and other sensitive uses of location and biometric information. Supporters included legislators and advocates who backed H. 86/S. 197 (Location Shield), H. 78/S. 45/H. 104/S. 29 (comprehensive privacy bills), H. 99/S. 47 (surveillance pricing in grocery stores), and H. 36/S. 36 (biometric recognition accountability). They emphasized data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data, consumer rights to access, delete, and opt out, and in some cases a private right of action. Several witnesses said Massachusetts should lead or align with other states, while others argued that stronger protections are needed because data can be weaponized by stalkers, anti-abortion actors, abusive partners, insurers, or law enforcement. Industry and coalition witnesses urged the committee to favor a more standardized, interoperable framework modeled on laws already adopted in other states, warning that novel definitions, data-minimization rules, and private rights of action could create compliance burdens, confusion, and costs for businesses, including small businesses. They argued that entity-level exemptions for sectors already covered by federal laws like HIPAA or GLBA promote consistency, and that Attorney General enforcement is preferable to private lawsuits. Committee members questioned witnesses on patchwork concerns, the scope of exemptions, and whether the proposed bills would harm or help consumers and small businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; written testimony was noted as due later, and the committee continued taking testimony from multiple panels and virtual witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Data will be provided to resource family partners, and this data will be used to help the resource partners

Bills: SB1558, SB1983, SB1796, SB1806, SB1426, SB633

Keywords: child care, licensing, definitions, foster care, child welfare, SB1983, resource family partner, resource family partners, Department of Human Services, DHS, foster homes, foster children, placement data, data sharing, de-identified data, aggregated data, sibling groups, placement disruptions, foster parent recruitment, foster parent retention

Transcript Highlights:

• "Yes, here's the data." Mr. Larson. "Yes, here's the data." Mr. Larson.
• Um, we have process now where we have access to data that is private data, public, uh, secure data, uh
• with sensitive data.
• interacting with sensitive data. interacting with sensitive data.
• They handle sensitive data as it breach. They handle sensitive data as it is. is. is.

Bills: HF1234, HF3528, HF3672, HF3679, HF3680, HF1944

Keywords: payment transparency, public contracts, contractor rights, government accountability, construction payments, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, data transparency, Legislative Budget Office, state agencies, fiscal notes, public data, standard time, federal law, time zone

Bills: HF2440

Keywords: labor market, employment, economic development, funding, data analysis, 1183, house

Bills: HF2440

Keywords: labor market, employment, economic development, funding, data analysis, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The Attorney General can prosecute cyber crimes if there's a data breach involving over 250 Texans.
• This data is stored in the Texas Child Care Availability Portal and is available to the public.
• HB 1403 by Harris, relating to the collection of certain data.
• Does DFPS have to keep genetic data or genetic samples of any kind?
• And is there data that we can look at?

Bills: HJR175, HJR88, HB21, HB49, HB216, HB346, HB573, HB565, HB954, HB1953, HB2686, HB1441, HB2734, HB1650, HB3161, HB2876, HB3185, HB3388, HB2761, HB3233, HB 1186, HB1534, HB5506, HB5129, HB3619, HB778, HB2867, HB3221, HB3672, HB2434, HB4903, HB3687, HB3675, HB4609, HB4582, HB4921, HB3866, HB3901, HB4534, HB2446, HB3984, HB700, HB4012, HB4491, HB4088, HB229, HB4234, HB722, HB4136, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB2858, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB2200, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HCR9, HCR40, HB5138, SB17, HB4944, HB2284, HB3421, SB1569, SB2420, SB1968, SB2351, SB2544, SB1490, SB1349, SB1568, SB2776, HB3531, HB2149, HB4327, HB3158, HB3717, HB4520, SB888, SB552, HB3138, HB3704, HB2921, HB4853, HB4506, HB3892, HJR161, HJR175, HJR88, HB1937, HB3334, HB5444, HB5137, HB361, HB321, HB5447, HB464, HB678, HB2294, HB4172, HB3225, HB1769, HB5394, HB1837, HB1787, HB2271, HB2440, HB5134, HB5149, HB2151, HB2073, HB2186, HB2025, HB1936, HB1777, HB1663, HB 1306, HB 1290, HB1527, HB4802, HB3462, HB2963, HB2462, HB2560, HB644, HB2725, HB2621, HB2588, HB1443, HB1403, HB3032, HB1557, HB1664, HB2811, HB2088, HB2598, HB3062, HB3134, HB3940, HB4027, HB4097, HB4862, HB4170, HB4157, HB4205, HB4279, HB4377, HB4838, HB5424, HB5294, HB4870, HB4763, HB5639, HB4112, HB2275, HB1677, HB5014, HB3848, HB3797, HB3727, HB3709, HB3177, HB3057, HB4176, HB4202, HB2180, HB3528, HB3658, HB21, HB49, HB216, HB346, HB573, HB565, HB954, HB1953, HB2686, HB1441, HB2734, HB1650, HB3161, HB2876, HB3185, HB3388, HB2761, HB3233, HB 1186, HB1534, HB5506, HB5129, HB3619, HB778, HB2867, HB3221, HB3672, HB2434, HB4903, HB3687, HB3675, HB4609, HB4582, HB4921, HB3866, HB3901, HB4534, HB2446, HB3984, HB700, HB4012, HB4491, HB4088, HB229, HB4234, HB722, HB4136, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB2858, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB2200, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40

Keywords: constitutional amendment, medium of exchange, currency rights, digital currency, financial autonomy, tax exemption, rainwater harvesting, graywater system, local government, ad valorem taxation, housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, audit requirements, affordable housing, development bonds, oil waste, gas waste, liability, treatment processes

Transcript Highlights:

• A bill establishing the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act.
• Senate Document 2608, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act.
• This turns meaningful data privacy legislation on its head.
• To mean anything, the right to privacy in the 21st century must include the right to data privacy.
• That's the challenge: finding the balance between data privacy and protections and the promise of data

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, recognized several guests in the chamber, and adopted a resolution congratulating Coleman-Nee on election as National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. It also took up several local and personnel matters, including a sick leave bank for Emily Cullick and later Paul Stavarski, and local bills affecting the town of Weston and a Dorchester housing/library procurement exemption; those measures were advanced to third reading or engrossment as appropriate. The chamber also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer several House petitions to committees. The main business was Senate No. 2516, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which came before the Senate on a Ways and Means substitute (Senate Document 2608). Senators Creem, Moore, Charles, Feingold, Keenan, and others spoke in support, describing the bill as a comprehensive consumer privacy measure with data minimization rules, limits on sensitive data, protections for minors, and strong Attorney General enforcement. Several amendments were debated, with many rejected or withdrawn, while some were adopted, including provisions on geolocation data protections, opting out of targeted advertising, affiliate and merger/acquisition protections, internal operations exemptions, parental access to child data, and a Ways and Means amendment. A number of other amendments on employee data, union data, loyalty programs, AI training, reporting, and related issues were either not adopted or held/withdrawn. After the amendment process, the Senate adopted the amended Ways and Means substitute and ordered the bill to a third reading. The bill was then passed to be engrossed on a roll call vote of 40-0. The Senate also adopted an order to adjourn to the following Monday at 11:00 a.m. and to dispense with printing a calendar. The session adjourned in memory of Darrow Logan Alexander of South Boston.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up on our agenda is the performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, OPDP, and
• Privacy and data protection refers to how agencies collect and manage the use of personal information
• We'll be using the term privacy in this presentation to refer to privacy and data protection.
• OPDP should develop and use performance measures to evaluate its long-term effect on privacy and data
• The Office of Privacy and Data Protection has regular quarterly meetings for state agencies and also

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on September 17, 2025, in hybrid format. After roll call, the committee initially lacked a quorum and deferred approval of the July 15 minutes until Representative Berg arrived; the minutes were then adopted. Members also discussed the proposed 2026 JLARC meeting schedule, including possible changes to address crowded July meetings and the annual tax exemption review workload. Staff presented the annual lodging tax expenditures report, noting that 213 municipalities received distributions in 2024, with 91% reporting compliance, $114 million awarded for more than 1,700 activities, and no independent verification of the self-reported data. Several members questioned the value and usefulness of the report, and the executive committee indicated it may recommend removing the statutory reporting requirement. The committee then heard the preliminary performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, which found the office meets its statutory responsibilities and has high user satisfaction, but recommended updating the statute to better match the office’s current capacity and focus and improving performance measures to reflect long-term privacy outcomes rather than outputs. Members asked about FERPA and other federal privacy laws, and OPDP staff said they provide general privacy training and consultation but not law-specific training unless requested. The committee adopted the final report on Washington State recreational boating programs without recommendation, after staff reported that boating revenues support both general government and boating activities and that no participating agencies submitted formal comments. Members asked about boater safety education and possible overlap among the six agencies involved; Parks staff said education has reached more than 500,000 boaters and that fatalities and incidents have declined. The committee also reviewed planned study questions for a JLARC review of Labor and Industries’ enforcement of farm worker laws, with members raising scope questions about the term “farm worker” versus “agricultural worker,” and for DNR’s Eastern Washington sustainable harvest calculation, which JLARC will review as DNR completes its recalculation. Finally, staff outlined the 2026 tax preference performance reviews covering seven preferences, and members asked about racial equity, environmental impacts, disclosure of beneficiary savings, and how the reviews will measure effectiveness; the meeting adjourned before noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• Big Tech has fought against data privacy for a long time.
• And data privacy actually benefits the small business.
• Our privacy is fundamental to who we are as American, our data.
• That is why this bill enshrines data privacy rights.
• states that have no data privacy laws.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House first adopted several resolutions from the Committee on Rules, including congratulations to four Eagle Scouts and recognition of Sturbridge on the 250th anniversary of the United States. The chamber then took up a series of bills reported by Ways and Means and other committees, repeatedly suspending the rules to move them forward. These included the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, a Fall River land conveyance bill, a Belmont alcohol licensing bill, a Reading senior property tax exemption bill, and a Linfield funding transfer bill, with each measure advancing by amendment or being passed to a third reading or engrossment. A major portion of the session focused on the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, with multiple members speaking in support. Supporters described the bill as a broad consumer privacy framework that would limit data collection, require consent for sensitive data, ban the sale of precise location data, restrict targeted advertising to minors, create consumer rights to access, correct, delete, and opt out of data uses, and provide enforcement tools for the Attorney General and, in limited cases, a private right of action. Several members emphasized protections for reproductive health, immigrant communities, and neural data, while others argued the bill would not burden small businesses and would instead hold large data holders accountable. The House adopted the Ways and Means amendment and ordered the bill to a third reading, then later passed the bill to be engrossed and enacted. The House also considered and enacted Senate 2563, a bill updating language in the laws concerning individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Members described the measure as removing outdated and offensive terminology and replacing it with person-first language without changing substantive law. After debate, the House adopted an amendment, passed the bill to be engrossed, and then enacted it by roll call. In addition, the House enacted the fiscal year 2026 supplemental appropriations bill, House 5470, and approved a bill extending deadlines for Middleton and Milton, both by roll call votes with no opposition. Later, the House took up a temporary summer 2026 local-option pilot allowing municipalities to extend liquor license hours and permit public consumption in designated districts. Supporters framed it as an economic development and tourism measure tied to major upcoming events, and the House adopted an amendment, passed the bill to be engrossed, and then concurred with the Senate version. The session ended with the House adopting an adjournment order and adjourning to meet again the following Monday in informal session.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:17.839> the consumer data privacy but I think the consumer data privacy but I think
• Data privacy laws.
• and health privacy and consumer data privacy issues.
• c> privacy and consumer data privacy um privacy and consumer data privacy um issues.<01:26:02.159>
• > federal data privacy protections under federal data privacy protections under federal law<01

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the October 15, 2025 minutes and then held a broader discussion on current challenges with data retention and government transparency. Judy Randall of the Office of the Legislative Auditor said historical data is essential for post-audits, which often look back three to five years, and that retention decisions must balance audit needs with the burden of separating public and nonpublic data. She described the records-retention panel process as informal and largely based on individual judgment, noting she had objected to a proposed 60-day email retention period and generally uses a three-year guideline, though she said that standard is not grounded in a formal rule. Members discussed whether auditing standards should set retention periods, with Randall saying auditing is a good starting point but other offices, including the attorney general, also have needs, and that some agency discretion is unavoidable because of the gray area between official records and non-records. Representative Elkins raised the related principle of data minimization, arguing that government should not keep data longer than needed and citing a University of Minnesota legacy data warehouse breach as an example of the risks of retaining unnecessary sensitive information. Randall agreed that data no longer needed is a liability and said her office purges workpapers after five years. Representative Scott pressed whether three years is enough for fraud investigations and financial records; Randall responded that a reasonableness standard is needed and that longer retention can produce diminishing returns, though she said she would follow up on whether financial records should be treated differently. Tanya Tacker of the Rum River Special Education Cooperative testified in support of updating Minnesota’s data-retention laws for schools. She said districts want to protect student information and maintain transparency, but the current general retention schedule dates to 1985 and 2000 and does not reflect digital records, modern systems, or the volume of special education data. She urged modernizing the schedule, clarifying what must be kept in paper versus digitized form, aligning state rules with IDEA and other federal requirements, and providing practical guidance and tools. Members praised the specificity of her recommendations. Dr. BB Newman testified that retention failures in St. Anthony Village have made it difficult to obtain routine municipal and police data, with records delayed, missing, or inconsistently produced and no clear explanation of what systems were searched or whether records were destroyed. Newman argued these gaps undermine statutory access rights and force residents into costly litigation, and recommended stronger retention auditing, documentation of destruction, mandatory disclosure of systems searched, and consequences for noncompliance. In response to questions, Senate counsel said there is generally no direct penalty, but affected parties may seek mandamus, Data Practices Act claims, or informal mediation/opinions from the Data Practices Office. The discussion closed with calls for clearer standards and possible legislative updates to improve compliance and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• Clinicians across the state have also raised many concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy
• concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause... ...pose data and privacy
• privacy of patients.
• Beyond unlawful data sharing, employment. Data even after being warned.
• that privacy.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on artificial intelligence, child safety, mental health, and privacy. SB 574 by Senator Umberg would require transparency and human oversight when attorneys, judges, and court neutrals use AI; it drew support from privacy advocates and committee members, with no opposition. SB 1276, the End Child Exploitation Act, would update child sexual exploitation laws to cover live-streamed and AI-generated abuse material and clarify that viewing such content can be criminally punishable; prosecutors, child advocacy groups, and others supported it, while no one appeared in opposition despite opposition on file. SB 813 would create a California AI standards and safety commission and a voluntary two-tier certification framework for AI safety standards; supporters said it would create scalable, independent oversight, while TechNet and CalChamber opposed it as duplicative, under-defined, and likely to create a de facto mandate. The committee discussed market pressure, federal preemption concerns, and the role of voluntary standards, but no final vote was taken in the excerpt. Senator Padilla also presented SB 300, which would strengthen protections for minors from sexually explicit chatbot content by moving from a reasonableness standard to an affirmative duty to prevent such exposure and to prohibit facilitation. Supporters said new evidence showed greater risks and that companies can and should build stronger safeguards; opponents, including TechNet and CCIA, argued the bill was premature because SB 243 had only recently taken effect and warned it could create strict-liability-like exposure. Padilla then presented SB 903, which would bar AI chatbots from being advertised as therapists, require licensed clinician oversight and informed consent for AI use in psychotherapy, and protect patient confidentiality; it received broad support from mental health professionals and labor groups, while industry and health associations were opposed unless amended over triage and crisis-detection language. The committee members emphasized the need for human judgment in mental health care and noted ongoing negotiations on amendments. The committee also heard SB 1119, a companion to AB 2020, which would require annual risk assessments, crisis-response protocols, default child settings, parental controls, limits on data use, public incident reporting, and third-party audits for chatbots used by children. Supporters argued the bill would address documented harms and improve transparency, while industry groups objected to ambiguous standards, liability exposure, and the private right of action. A roll call vote was taken on SB 1119 after quorum was established; the motion to pass to Appropriations succeeded on a 5-1 vote, with one no vote and the measure left on call for absent members. Finally, SB 354, a privacy bill for insurance consumers, would modernize outdated insurance privacy rules, bar sale of personal information, and expand consumer rights to know, correct, and delete data. Supporters said it would implement Proposition 24’s privacy mandate, while a large coalition of insurers, agents, brokers, and related businesses opposed unless amended, mainly seeking a small-business exemption and narrower treatment of publicly available information; members and the author said negotiations were ongoing and the bill had already been substantially revised.

Transcript Highlights:

• Clinicians across the state have also raised many concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy
• concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause... ...pose data and privacy
• privacy of patients.
• Beyond unlawful data sharing, employment. Data even after being warned.
• that privacy.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• S. 71, an act relating to consumer data S. 71, an act relating to consumer data privacy<00:07:04.320
• As 71 creates a comprehensive data As 71 creates a comprehensive data privacy<00:09:42.880> law
• January of 2028, the Vermont Data January of 2028, the Vermont Data Privacy<00:09:47.600> and
• This bill would establish Vermont's comprehensive consumer data privacy law.
• This bill would establish Vermont's comprehensive consumer data privacy law.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first took up House Bill 955, relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system. The chamber suspended rules to consider the Senate proposal of amendment immediately, and the House Education Committee reported that while it appreciated the Senate’s work, differences remained on issues including the timing of class size minimums, possible tuition or fees under the foundation formula, school construction details, and merger committee groupings. The committee voted 11-0-0 to refuse concurrence and request a committee of conference. After a brief correction on the committee straw poll, the House voted to refuse concurrence in the Senate amendment and appointed Representatives Conlin, Kornheiser, and Quimby as the House conferees. The House then suspended rules to message its action to the Senate forthwith. The House next took up Senate Bill 71, the consumer data privacy and online surveillance bill. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee recommended amendment, and the floor report described the bill as creating a comprehensive Vermont data privacy law effective January 1, 2028. The report outlined consumer rights to know, access, correct, delete, and port personal data, and to opt out of targeted advertising and sale of data; duties for controllers and processors; limits on sensitive data use; special protections for minors and health-related geofencing; Attorney General enforcement; and an 18-month cure period. The committee heard extensive testimony from a broad range of advocates, industry representatives, privacy experts, and other stakeholders, and it reported the bill out favorably with amendment on a vote of 11-0-0 before the House recessed for dinner.

Transcript Highlights:

• hides a camera in a locker room and Unsuspecting people changing clothes where there's a right to privacy
• So, we are the and and we have data to show how many eligible voters could vote who don't vote or don't

Bills: HB4104, HB3722, HB3787, HB3700, HB3701, HB3310, HB3404, HB2964, HB2398, HB3024, HB3499, HB3278, HB3279, HB3645, HB3649, HB2293, HB3260, HB3176, HB3177, HB3114, HB3172, HB3322, HB3323, HB4248, HB3720, HB2210, HB1322, HB1937, HB3301, HB4107

Keywords: Oklahoma criminal law, felony classification, Class B5, Class D1, sentencing enhancement, repeat offender, domestic violence, stalking, voyeurism, peeping tom, clandestine recording, hidden camera, privacy offense, sex offender registry, Sex Offenders Registration Act, protective order violation, animal cruelty, cockfighting, dogfighting, public safety