H.563 creates a new civil cause of action for the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s image when that image is captured within 25 feet of the entrance, exit, or designated access point of an “essential human and medical care facility.” The bill defines those facilities broadly to include places such as hospitals, emergency treatment centers, abortion clinics, methadone dispensaries, and homeless shelters providing medical-adjacent services. It also defines “care” broadly to include medical treatment, mental health services, reproductive health services, substance use treatment, shelter, food assistance, and medication support.
Under the bill, a person may not knowingly or recklessly capture, record, transmit, or otherwise obtain an image of an individual in this protected area if the primary intent is commercial exploitation and the person depicted has not given express written consent. The bill includes exceptions for law enforcement, licensed security guards acting in their official duties, legitimate journalism tied to newsworthy events or matters of public interest, and personal recordings not later used commercially. A prevailing plaintiff could recover actual damages, emotional distress damages, financial harm, punitive damages in intentional or malicious cases, attorney’s fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 12 of Vermont law and would expand state civil remedies related to privacy and appropriation of likeness. It is designed to operate alongside existing common-law and statutory protections rather than replace them, and it directs courts to construe the chapter broadly to protect privacy around access to essential care. The effective date is July 1, 2026.
The bill’s stated policy goal is to protect vulnerable people seeking essential care from unwanted commercial filming or photography that could deter them from accessing services. The overall sentiment reflected in the text is strongly supportive of privacy, dignity, and access to care, with the bill framed as a response to commercial exploitation at sensitive facility entrances. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the protected zone, the breadth of the facility definitions, and the balance between privacy rights and First Amendment/newsgathering interests. The bill expressly tries to address those concerns by carving out journalism, law enforcement, security, and personal-use recordings, but disputes could still arise over what counts as a “legitimate public interest nexus,” whether an image was taken for commercial exploitation, and whether the 25-foot buffer is too broad or too narrow.
This bill would create a new statutory privacy tort in Vermont law, giving individuals a private right of action when their likeness is commercially exploited after being captured near the entrances of covered care facilities. It would supplement existing appropriation-of-likeness remedies and authorize damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and injunctive relief, thereby increasing legal exposure for commercial photographers, media-adjacent businesses, and others who use images taken in these sensitive areas for profit.
The bill is framed in strongly protective terms, emphasizing privacy, dignity, and access to essential care for vulnerable people. Based on the bill text alone, the overall sentiment appears favorable toward restricting exploitative photography and supportive of patients and care-seekers, while preserving narrow exceptions for journalism, law enforcement, and personal use. No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to indicate broader support or opposition.
Likely contention centers on the balance between privacy and free-expression rights, especially the bill’s limits on photography and commercial use near care facilities. Opponents could argue that the 25-foot “functional curtilage of care” is overbroad or difficult to enforce, while supporters would emphasize the vulnerability of people seeking medical, reproductive, substance-use, shelter, or related services. Additional disputes may involve the definitions of “commercial exploitation,” “legitimate public interest,” and whether the exceptions for journalism and personal recordings are sufficiently clear.