Respected Delegates, Thank you for your time today. I am submitting comment on HB 569 Public works contracts; localities to ensure bid specifications are prevailing wage rate. I am Director of Community Development for the City of Buena Vista, one of the state’s smallest cities. I routinely work with grants for construction and public works as defined in this bill. At a time when Buena Vista’s infrastructure is in desperate need of deferred maintenance and reconstruction, and construction costs have increased far faster than inflation, this proposal will significantly drive up costs for essential public works. It burdens construction projects with unrelated socio-economic policy goals, ballooning the cost to our taxpayers of actually getting things done. The requirements of the bill will do two things: increase costs and risks for contractors (employers), and increase the costs and risks for local governments. Costs and risks for contractors: • Direct administrative cost to contractors is added to bottom line of bid, as well as cost of liability risk for noncompliance • Some contractors do not have experience or capacity to handle prevailing wage compliance, resulting in fewer bidders for City projects • § 2.2-4321.3 paragraph H appears to require all subcontractors be registered with eVA, which adds to the complexity and cost for primes • § 2.2-4321.3 paragraph K requires that all employees working on a public contract have at least 4 years of work experience, or be part of a registered apprenticeship. How is this realistic? This penalizes employers and it penalizes young workers trying to enter the field who are not part of a registered apprenticeship. Costs and risks for localities: • Direct administrative cost of more complex procurement documents and process, including wage determinations, and auditing contracted employers. The City of Buena Vista does not currently have staff who are trained in Davis-Bacon wage rule compliance, nor do we have staff with time to perform this compliance work. • Fewer bidders for projects. Buena Vista has direct experience on several contracts within the last 5 years – Federal contracting provisions like Davis-Bacon have driven away contractors interested in performing work and measurably increased the cost of awarded contract. • The City bears some liability for improperly advertised or non-compliant projects I urge Committee members to reject this bill entirely. Thank you.

I write to make a case against HB 757, also known as the App Store Accountability Act. As the parent of a 5 and 9-year old, the last thing I want to do is lean against legislation meant to help young people. Just the same, parenting is too important to leave up to lawmakers and the legislation of good parental/child outcomes. Next, the legislation is superfluous. Everything in it meant to protect kids is already available to parents as is. Apple and Google devices provide parents with all manner of ways to limit screen time, vet apps added, not to mention the blurring of nude images along with the blocking of messages from unknown, potentially older people. Which is why the legislation is superfluous. Precisely because most parents don't need it given the myriad protections already afforded them, the danger of the legislation can be found in the parents who do need to be more vigilant. Laws create a false sense of security, simply put. If parents think the state is watching over their kids, they may be less likely to. It speaks to the danger of passing HB 757, no matter how well intentioned. I hope Virginia House members vote against the bill.

On behalf of the Institute for Family Studies, I am providing written feedback in support of HB 757. In essence, we urge the Subcommittee to move this bill forward because it is a common sense legislation. Contrary to what opponents say, this bill is not about restricting access to content; rather, it simply applies longstanding contracting requirements to tech companies and developers - namely, that corporations do not have a right to contract with minors without parental consent.

See attatched

My name is Melissa McKay. I’m a mother of five and a device and online safety expert. Since 2017, I’ve worked to protect children in the digital world. I’ve written Congressional testimony, led three national child-safety movements, and authored multiple coalition letters to Apple's Trust and Safety teams. This year, our coalition of over 170 child advocacy groups is supporting the App Store Accountability Act, a short, targeted bill that addresses three of the most exploitative issues in app stores. 1. Lack of Parental Consent for Binding App Contracts Nearly every app comes with sweeping terms of service contracts that allow companies to track users, sell their data, establish financial agreements, and often access their exact location or camera. In a recent case involving Snapchat, an adult predator was able to locate a 13-year-old victim using Snap maps, who was then sexually assaulted, even though she had told him on the app she didn’t want to meet in person. Trillion-dollar companies should not be able to broker underage children to other billion-dollar companies without parental oversight. App stores require parental consent for these contracts only for children under 12. This is absurd. In no other context are children allowed to enter into contracts of this magnitude without parental oversight. This bill restores parental oversight for all minors. 2. Deceptive App Age Ratings Unlike movies or video games, apps lack a third-party industry group to oversee their ratings. This leaves app stores to create their own confusing and inconsistent rating systems. Risks are often undisclosed, and misrepresentations are rarely punished. In a recent Wall Street Journal expose, researchers found hundreds of apps with inappropriate content that were rated for children over a 24-hour period. Those included apps for circumventing banned sites, violent or sexual games, and anonymous chat. ¼ of the total reviewed apps were misrated. Nowhere else in the world can you lie about content and get away with it. This bill creates enforcement that clearly ties these misrepresentations to deceptive advertising laws. 3. Responsibility for Age Verification App stores know almost everything about their users. They often have access to your age, address, payment methods, and personal preferences. Reading the app store privacy agreement feels about as private as a TSA body scan. In contrast, apps know nothing about a user when first downloaded, creating a dangerous asymmetry of information. Without verified age data, apps cannot effectively comply with federal laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) or implement age-appropriate safety defaults. Apple and Google are knowingly placing underage children in situations that expose them to harm and potentially violate federal laws. By neglecting their fiduciary duties, they should be liable. Our team has been working on this bill for years. It’s one of the most elegant solutions for addressing multiple online safety issues in one piece of legislation. I urge you to pass it.

I write in support of HB 757, commonly referred to as the App Store Accountability Act, because it is a pragmatic, privacy-first, child-centric solution, utilizing existing technologies, to one of the most pressing challenges of our time: protecting children and families in an increasingly complex and exploitative digital world. App stores serve as the central gatekeepers to how Virginia children interact on their devices, who use approximately 40 different apps per week. This unique position of App Stores makes them a natural and efficient doorway for implementing critical, commonsense protections, and for complying with basic contract law. I've attached my full letter of support. Sincerely, Chris McKenna CEO, Protect Young Eyes

Please see attached.

On behalf of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a society in which all people benefit from technological advances, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 757, which would mandate intrusive age verification and parental consent requirements that undermine privacy, centralize sensitive personal data, and risk cutting young people off from essential online resources.

See attached for opposition comments to HB 757.

Please accept the attached testimony on behalf of the R Street Institute in opposition to HB 757.

My name is Sharon Tapper, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Music Managers Forum-US (MMF-US). Established in 1993, MMF-US is the leading trade association for professional artist managers and self-managed artists in the United States. As a 501(c)(6) nonprofit, our mission is to educate, connect, and advocate on behalf of the artist management community — supporting professional development, fostering collaboration, and advancing fair and transparent industry practices. Today, we represent a nationwide community of more than 14,000 members and affiliates, reflecting the voices of artist managers and self-managed artists across all genres and stages of career development. Since 2022, our membership has grown by more than 600%, with active Chapters in Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, Miami, Chicago, Austin, Boston, and Atlanta — all hosting local programs and events that build community and empower managers and artists. As a member of the International Music Managers Forum (IMMF), we also connect with over sixty global Music Manager Forums, ensuring our advocacy reflects the shared concerns of creators and their representatives worldwide. On behalf of our members, MMF-US strongly opposes Virginia Bill HB825, which would permit speculative ticket sales and legalize concierge-style ticketing services that operate without holding confirmed inventory. Allowing speculative ticketing practices — where sellers list tickets they do not yet possess — increases consumer confusion, inflates prices, and exposes fans to unnecessary financial risk. These practices distort the live event marketplace, undermine artist-fan trust, and prioritize arbitrage over access. Legalizing concierge resale services that function without meaningful transparency or consumer safeguards would further entrench speculative behavior in the ticketing ecosystem. Artists and their teams already face significant backlash from fans over ticket pricing and availability — backlash often driven by opaque resale practices, hidden markups, and artificial scarcity created in secondary markets. Policies that legitimize speculative sales risk compounding these issues rather than solving them. A healthy live music ecosystem depends on transparency, accountability, and fair access. Legislation should prioritize consumer protections, clear disclosure standards, and safeguards that prevent deceptive resale activity — not expand opportunities for speculation at the expense of artists and fans. We urge lawmakers to reject HB825 and instead work toward solutions that promote fairness, transparency, and sustainable live event markets that serve creators and their audiences alike. Sincerely, Sharon Tapper Executive Director Music Managers Forum-US (MMF-US)

See attached.

I support this statement being used in H.B. 1251. “Manufacturers, distributors, importers or dealers of all off-road (non-road) equipment, including without limitation, farm and utility tractors, farm implements, farm machinery, forestry equipment, industrial equipment, utility equipment, construction equipment, compact construction equipment, road-building equipment, mining equipment, turf, yard and garden equipment, outdoor power equipment, portable generators, marine, all-terrain sports and recreational vehicles (including racing vehicles), stand-alone or integrated stationary or mobile internal combustion engines, other power sources, (including without limitation, generator sets, electric/battery and fuel cell power), power tools, and any tools, technology, attachments, accessories, components and repair parts for any of the foregoing.”

AHAM opposing comments attached

Please see attached letter.

See attached.

Please see attached. Thank you.

Attached please find EMA's written testimony in Opposition Unless Amended to HB1251.

Written testimony concerning HB 1251.

Written testimony concerning HB 1251.