Senate Judiciary advances HB 1090 on price transparency after amendment votes

During a Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, members advanced House Bill 1090, a consumer price-transparency bill that the sponsors and stakeholders say is intended to require clearer upfront pricing by businesses, including delivery network companies such as DoorDash and Instacart. The committee adopted sponsor amendments adding narrowly drawn safe harbors and sector-specific compliance paths, approved a change removing a private right of action in favor of state enforcement, rejected proposed federal-preemption language and a carve-out for one-time upfront fees, and passed the bill on a 4-3 roll call.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Cutter, told the committee the text reflects weeks of stakeholder negotiations. "We've worked really hard, and my thanks to all the stakeholders and everyone who have been involved in this," Cutter said, adding the sponsors had made compromises to reach a place that left "a few of our key stakeholders in a really good place." The measure and its amendments were discussed at length by committee members and industry representatives earlier in the day and in a prior hearing.

Committee discussion and the sponsor amendments

The committee first took up two sponsor amendments identified as L22 and L23. Amendment L22 adds a safe-harbor provision that points to specific federal regulatory frameworks—among them portions of the Code of Federal Regulations governing cable and satellite services (cited in committee as 47 CFR)—so that entities already meeting those federal frameworks can rely on that compliance for this bill. The committee adopted L22 over no recorded opposition.

Amendment L23, also adopted without recorded opposition, lays out a compliance pathway for certain delivery network companies (the sponsor repeatedly named DoorDash, Instacart and Uber Eats in describing the affected sector). L23 includes detailed elements an eligible company must satisfy and notes that an attorney general rulemaking or alternative state regulatory approach could also satisfy compliance requirements.

Attorney general enforcement and private litigation

A contested change came with Amendment L18, moved by Senator Carson, which would remove a private right of action and rely instead on enforcement by the Colorado Attorney General, including civil penalties discussed in committee. Carson urged the change as a pragmatic first step, saying the prospect of “the hammer of the attorney general potentially coming down” with fines could deter abuses. Senator Weissman opposed removing a private right of action, arguing that state courts and private claims are part of how citizens seek redress: "We do not consider this a friendly amendment and I'm asking for a no vote," Weissman said during debate.

The committee adopted L18 on a 4-3 vote. The amendment therefore narrows remedies in the bill toward state enforcement, rather than preserving an explicit private right of action in the bill text.

Federal law language rejected; one-time-fee carve-out rejected

Senator Carson also offered Amendment L19 to change statutory language from entities being “compliant with” certain federal statutes to being merely “subject to” them—language Carson said would make clear that entities regulated at the federal level should report to federal regulators. Sen. Weissman and others argued that “compliant with” is the correct standard for the bill because the goal is to ensure actual compliance rather than just the existence of federal laws. The committee rejected L19 on a 2-5 vote, retaining the existing "compliant with" formulation in the bill.

Another proposal, Amendment L20, would have carved out one-time upfront fees (for example, a one-time sign-up or administrative fee) from the bill’s calculation of advertised recurring price if those fees were clearly disclosed. Sponsors of L20 said the change would address practices common in self-storage and similar industries; opponents warned that the language was too broad and could undercut the bill’s total-price transparency objective. The committee rejected L20 on a 2-5 vote.

Final vote and next steps

After closing remarks from the sponsor and committee members, the committee voted to advance the bill. Ms. Jensen conducted a roll call: Senator Ball voted Aye; Senator Carson No; Senator Doherty Yes; Senator Liston No; Senator Roberts No; Senator Weissman Yes; Madam Chair Aye. The measure passed the committee by a 4-3 vote and will next move through the legislative process according to Senate rules.

Why it matters

Supporters said the bill will increase transparency and allow consumers to compare costs more easily, while opponents warned that limiting private litigation and relying on state enforcement could leave residents in less-populated areas with fewer effective remedies. Committee debate centered on the scope of state enforcement power, interactions with federal regulatory regimes, and narrowly tailored exceptions for sectors already regulated at the federal level.

Votes at a glance

- L22 (safe harbor language referencing federal regulatory frameworks such as 47 CFR): adopted (no recorded opposition; committee announced adoption). - L23 (compliance pathway for delivery network companies; cites potential AG rulemaking): adopted (no recorded opposition; committee announced adoption). - L18 (remove private right of action; rely on AG enforcement and civil penalties): adopted, 4-3 (tally recorded by the committee). - L19 (change "compliant with" to "subject to" federal statutes): failed, 2-5 (Carson and Liston voted Yes; Ball, Doherty, Roberts, Weissman and the Chair voted No). - L20 (carve-out for disclosed one-time upfront fees): failed, 2-5. - Final: HB 1090 advanced out of Senate Judiciary Committee, passed on a 4-3 roll call (Aye: Ball, Doherty, Weissman, Chair; No: Carson, Liston, Roberts).

All amendment texts, committee reports and sponsor statements will determine the bill’s precise statutory language; the committee record shows the sponsors sought narrow safe harbors and a role for the attorney general while resisting broader carve-outs or preemption language.