The Monopoly Report: Episode 56

"The People of Vermont Want Privacy Too!"

Host: Alan Chapell
Guest: Vermont Representative Monique Priestley
Date: November 19, 2025

Overview

This episode offers an in-depth conversation between host Alan Chapell and Vermont State Representative Monique Priestley. The focus: Vermont’s ongoing struggles to pass comprehensive consumer privacy legislation, the fierce industry lobbying around such efforts, and the practical realities and stakes for both lawmakers and businesses. Priestley shares behind-the-scenes insights from her legislative experience, contrasts Vermont’s approach with other states (like Connecticut and Maryland), and discusses pressing topics like private rights of action, data minimization, sensitive data definitions, the data broker registry, authorized agent mechanisms, and political hypocrisy around data privacy.

The discussion is candid, with both Chapell and Priestley challenging each other on the realities and idealisms of current privacy lawmaking in the U.S.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Monique Priestley’s Privacy Journey

• [03:43] Priestley outlines her tech background and entry into the privacy domain.
  • Early exposure to computers, tech roles in multiple sectors, and eventually serving as a tech translator/liaison for less technically-savvy colleagues in the legislature.

2. The Challenge of Crafting State Privacy Laws in Vermont

Industry Lobbying and Structural Barriers

• [05:29 – 09:01]
  • Priestley describes the "fiercest lobbying" the Vermont Statehouse has seen in decades.
  • National lobbyists distribute talking points through regional and local layers, causing significant delays (“five weeks between question and answer”) and deflection tactics, like stonewalling or even disparaging lawmakers.
  • Quote [07:21]:

    "Anytime that I or anybody else asks a question about a thing, they have to run it up that flagpole and then back down that flagpole...there is five weeks sometimes of a delay..." — Monique Priestley

Tech Literacy as Legislative Hurdle

• [06:46] Priestley often serves as “tech support” for legislative colleagues who struggle with the complexity of privacy legislation.

3. Core Components of a ‘Good’ Privacy Law

Priestley identifies the essential pillars:

• Consumer Rights: Right to know, correct, and delete data ([09:34]).
• Data Minimization: Companies should only collect what’s necessary ([09:34]).
• Enforcement Mechanism: Including access to redress when rights are violated.

Debate on Data Minimization

• Priestley notes initial alignment with Maryland’s approach but revised Vermont’s standard after hearing feedback about ambiguity from compliance professionals ([11:02]).

Private Right of Action (PRA)

• [11:54 – 17:30]
  • Extensive back-and-forth on the need for and risks of a PRA.
  • Priestley emphasizes that only AG (Attorney General) enforcement is insufficient, users require the right to take action themselves.
  • Quote [12:24]:

    “The AG doesn't represent people. The AG represents the state. And when you have individual people who are being harmed… why are we making it different for digital tech policy? Like, come on.” — Monique Priestley

  • Chapell highlights the concern about excessive lawsuits and the “slippery slope” of future statutory damages; Priestley counters that all bills, on both sides, are subject to amendment and influence as power dynamics shift.
  • Vermont’s private right of action would currently apply only to businesses earning $500M+ annually, directly affecting very few Vermont companies ([27:46]).

4. Sensitive Data Protections

• Vermont aims to align with the Connecticut “Maroney” model — "heightened protections for things like biometric data, consumer health data, and minor data." ([18:40])
• Priestley acknowledges evolving biometric definitions: “...biometric is going to be an evolving definition probably for the rest of our natural lives.” — Alan Chapell [17:50]

5. Vermont’s Data Broker Registry and the 'Delete Act'

• Vermont was the first state to create a data broker registry, but original definitions were “old school” (PII like emails, address).
• Updates are in progress, including a plan similar to California’s Delete Act for a state-run consumer “drop” or mass-deletion mechanism funded by registration fees.
  • Quote [21:05]:

    “The idea would be to create our own drop mechanism that is funded by registration fees...to try to get to where California is at on that.” — Monique Priestley

6. Authorized Agents & the Burden of Data Deletion

• Vermont’s bills permit authorized agents to make privacy requests on behalf of consumers.
• Priestley notes the vast number of potential data brokers (over 8,600 worldwide as per Jeff Jokish) makes DIY deletion unworkable ([23:11]), though she acknowledges the need for oversight of authorized agents to prevent abuse.
• Industry frustration: Chapell notes that authorized agents sometimes flood even irrelevant companies with requests just because they're registered brokers; Priestley is open to legislating agent conduct ([25:35]).

7. Parity Across State Privacy Laws

• There’s active dialogue between state legislators to keep rules broadly consistent and practical while strategically “moving the needle” toward stronger consumer rights ([30:00]).
  • Quote [30:00]:

    "All of us want to have something that's like implementable and doesn't put too much stress on businesses...but for things like, for instance... we've automated systems for the 45 days." — Monique Priestley

• Chapell suggests national parity will be necessary; Priestley worries too much industry influence will result in watered-down federal standards.

8. Political Campaigns, Privacy, and Hypocrisy

• Priestley recounts direct pressure from party apparatus and industry (including the Democratic party and DNC) to exempt political operations from privacy laws.
  • Quote [33:27]:

    "Are you kidding me? Like, we're putting people at risk. You're going to try to kill this consumer protection bill because you want your donation money? Like, I will go to the press with this. Like, what are you doing?" — Monique Priestley

• She details her efforts to run her campaign without purchasing suspect data or using platforms with poor privacy records, even turning down party-supported tools ([35:17]).
• Chapell notes the awkwardness and risk of privacy advocates being found complicit through campaign vendor slip-ups ([36:05]).
• Priestley:
  • “The biggest source of revenue for most political campaigns is selling people's data. And I'm not about that. So, yeah, it's. It's horrifying. I don't agree with that.” ([36:19])

9. Lobbying, Power Imbalance, and Small Business Impact

• Priestley highlights the lopsided resource advantage of industry lobbyists versus legislators: “There’s more lobbyists in our building than there are legislators, and they’re paid full time and we’re paid $15,000 a year.” ([17:34])
• Special care is being taken to shield small businesses from undue privacy compliance burdens—e.g., limiting PRA exposure to large businesses; considering “safe harbor” or reduced requirements for small business ([28:47]).

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Priestley’s Privacy ‘Origin Story’: [03:43]
• How Industry Lobbies Against Privacy Laws: [05:29 – 09:01]
• Components of Strong Privacy Law: [09:34]
• Debate: Private Right of Action: [11:54 – 17:30]
• Sensitive Data, Biometric Debate: [17:50 – 19:51]
• Data Broker Registry and the ‘Delete Act’: [20:21 – 22:02]
• Authorized Agents — Problems and Possibilities: [23:11 – 25:51]
• Parity Across States, Federal Implications: [30:00 – 32:27]
• Political Hypocrisy & Campaign Data Exploitation: [33:27 – 36:19]
• Small Business Concerns and Lobbying Power: [17:34; 28:47]

Notable Quotes

• On Lobbying Delays:

  "...there is five weeks sometimes of a delay between when I ask a question about Redline and when they get the approved, run it up the chain and then run it back down to get approval to tell me an answer..."
  — Monique Priestley [07:21]

• On Private Right of Action:

  “The AG doesn't represent people. The AG represents the state. And when you have individual people who are being harmed... why are we making it different for digital tech policy? Like, come on.”
  — Monique Priestley [12:24]

• On Political Pressure Against Privacy Laws:

  "Are you kidding me? Like, we're putting people at risk. You're going to try to kill this consumer protection bill because you want your donation money? Like, I will go to the press with this."
  — Monique Priestley [33:27]

• On the Futility of DIY Data Deletion:

  “You can't expect an individual person, if they're on even a fraction of [8,600 data brokers] to be able to go to every single one of those sites and request deletion or update either. So I think there is room for something.”
  — Monique Priestley [23:11]

• On Biometric Data’s Changing Nature:

  “Biometric is going to be an evolving definition probably for the rest of our natural lives.”
  — Alan Chapell [17:50]

• On the Resource Gap in Legislation:

  “There’s more lobbyists in our building than there are legislators, and they’re paid full time and we’re paid 15 grand a year. So, like, the power is... there is a power imbalance there.”
  — Monique Priestley [17:34]

Tone & Speaker Dynamics

• The conversation is open, sharp, and refreshingly nonpartisan, with Chapell playing both advocate and devil’s advocate and Priestley offering frank, sometimes passionate, responses about both ideal outcomes and real-world constraints.
• There’s a notable undertone of frustration at entrenched interests, but also a willingness for compromise and a focus on nuanced, state-specific solutions.

For Further Reference

• Lauren Schultz’s “Private Rights of Action and Privacy Law” — highly recommended by Priestley for understanding the PRA debate.
• Vermont’s privacy bills, with emphasis on S.71 and the trio of proposed reforms (kids’ bill, privacy bill, data broker update).

Conclusion

This episode gives listeners a rare peek behind the curtain at both the policy fights and ethical dilemmas animating the privacy debate at the state level. It showcases the immense complexity of aligning interests — from Big Tech to small business to local voters — and registers the urgent need for both principled and practical leadership in data privacy lawmaking.

For direct engagement with Rep. Priestley:

“I invite those conversations and even if it’s coffee when I’m traveling…” — Monique Priestley [37:33]
Find her at PriestleyVT.com

Stay Informed:
Subscribe to the Monopoly Report for ongoing coverage of state and federal privacy developments.