An act relating to notification of robocalls that use an artificial voice
H.829 would add a new section to Vermont’s consumer protection and telecommunications laws requiring certain robocalls that use an artificial voice to begin with an unrecorded, natural-voice announcement. Before playing a prerecorded message, the caller would have to identify the nature of the call, provide the name, address, and telephone number of the business or organization represented if any, ask whether the recipient consents to hear the prerecorded message, and disclose whether the message uses an artificial voice. The bill defines “artificial intelligence,” “artificial voice,” and “automatic dialing-announcing device” for purposes of the new rule.
The bill also requires the caller to disconnect the dialing-announcing device when the call ends and makes violations enforceable as civil violations under existing Vermont law. A recipient of a prohibited call could sue in Superior Court for damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney’s fees, with statutory civil penalties of $500 for a first violation and $1,000 for each later violation. Knowing and willful violations would also carry criminal penalties of up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000 per violation, or both. The Attorney General would be directed to cooperate with other state and federal authorities to identify and enforce against violators, including callers located outside Vermont.
H.829 would expand Vermont’s telemarketing and robocall enforcement framework by creating a specific disclosure requirement for calls using AI-generated or significantly altered voices. It would amend Title 9 by adding a new section that ties violations to existing consumer-protection enforcement provisions, creates private rights of action, and authorizes both civil and criminal penalties. The bill would affect businesses, political or advocacy organizations, and any other callers using automated dialing-announcing devices with prerecorded or AI-generated messages, while also strengthening enforcement tools for consumers and the Attorney General.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed positively as a consumer-protection and transparency bill aimed at addressing emerging AI-enabled robocall practices. The sponsors suggest concern about deceptive or unwanted automated calls, and the bill’s structure indicates support for stronger notice and enforcement requirements. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to show opposition or amendments, so the overall sentiment in the available record is one of precautionary regulation rather than controversy.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope and burden of the new notice requirement, the use of criminal penalties, and the private right of action with attorney’s fees and statutory damages. Businesses and organizations that rely on automated outreach may view the natural-voice announcement and disclosure obligations as operationally burdensome, while consumer advocates are likely to support them as necessary to combat deceptive AI-generated robocalls. Another possible issue is enforcement against out-of-state callers, which the bill expressly contemplates through Attorney General cooperation with other jurisdictions.