Committee hears bill to bar use of surveillance data for individualized prices and wages

Representative Iman Jodeh Garcia (sponsor) opened testimony on House Bill 12‑64, a measure that would prohibit using surveillance‑derived personal data and algorithmic inferences to set individualized prices or wages.

The bill: Sponsors said the measure would ban businesses from using biometric, behavioral, or otherwise surveilled personal data to calculate individualized charges or pay. The proposal includes permitted exceptions such as bona fide discounts, performance‑based pay, and other narrowly drawn uses; sponsors said they planned amendments to better define terms like "bona fide discount" and to align the measure with existing privacy and AI statutes.

Supporters' case: Labor and consumer groups, civil‑liberties advocates and gig‑economy drivers described concrete harms. Sophie Mariam of the Colorado Fiscal Institute and Nina DeSalvo of Towards Justice argued the practice lets companies "identify the most a particular consumer is willing to pay or the least a particular worker is willing to accept." Rideshare and delivery drivers testified that the platforms' algorithms produce inconsistent offers and pay; driver Kareem Sawadogo said, "My income went down 40% because of the AI system Uber and Lyft used to provide drivers." Consumer Reports and the ACLU urged action, citing the Federal Trade Commission's January 17, 2025 report on surveillance pricing.

Industry concerns and trade‑offs: Technology companies, retailers and business groups cautioned that broadly worded restrictions could block common consumer benefits such as opt‑in loyalty programs, personalized coupons, promotional rebates and legitimate dynamic pricing. David Shapiro, chief legal officer at Ibotta, said the company's offers are "permission based" and warned that an overbroad law could eliminate voluntary rebates and loyalty savings that deliver consumer discounts. Business groups asked for clearer carve‑outs and alignment with the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) and the recently enacted state AI law (discussed as SB 24205 in testimony).

Enforcement and remedies: Supporters urged a private right of action to enable consumers and workers to enforce the law, arguing state enforcement capacity is limited. Industry witnesses and the governor's Office of Information Technology warned a broad private‑right‑of‑action plus imprecise definitions would encourage litigation and could chill legitimate pricing and innovation.

Key examples cited in testimony: a national report showing higher prices in ZIP codes with different demographics (college test‑prep priced higher in some ZIP codes), airlines and third‑party travel sites that display different fares, and repeated driver examples of unequal payouts for the same rides. Consumer advocates cited experiments and surveys showing consumers notice opaque price differences; drivers gave concrete examples of $19 versus $28 offers for identical trips.

Next steps: Sponsors said they will file amendments to clarify definitions (including references to existing definitions of "sensitive data" and "automated decision systems"), carve out bona fide loyalty discounts and permit pay equity analyses and compliance uses. The committee heard more than two dozen witnesses across proponent, opponent and neutral positions and did not take a final vote.