Committee advances bill to undo 'significant public impact' barrier in consumer-protection law after heated testimony

The Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee on March 1, 2025, voted 4-3 to advance Senate Bill 25-157 to the Committee of the Whole with a verbal recommendation. The bill would narrow the barrier Colorado courts have read into the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) — a requirement often called the "significant public impact" test — and thereby make it easier for private plaintiffs to bring CCPA claims without first proving widespread, multi-victim harm.

Sponsor Senator Weisman opened by saying the judicially imposed requirement has left many Coloradans without remedies and urged the committee to restore the private right of action as the legislature originally intended: "How many of our constituents have to suffer harm from economic injury or loss or worse from unfair and deceptive acts or practices before the courthouse doors will be open to them?" he asked.

Proponents described consumer harm that they said the current test prevents them from addressing. David Seligman of Towards Justice said private enforcement is essential as federal enforcement weakens; Kevin Chaney of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association gave an example of a Hispanic woman who paid $1,035 for an auto warranty that did not cover her repairs and said she had no practical legal remedy under Colorado's current interpretation. Jose Vasquez of Colorado Legal Services and advocates from ACLU Colorado, the National Consumer Law Center and the Community Economic Defense Project likewise urged committee members to restore easier access to civil remedies for consumers.

Opponents — including the Colorado Apartment Association, COPIC (a medical liability insurer), the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and other business groups — warned the bill would expand treble-damage and attorney-fee exposure, increase litigation, raise insurance costs and could raise housing and health-care costs. Andrew Hamrick of the Colorado Apartment Association told the committee the bill "will dramatically increase the cost of litigation for us" and argued higher costs would be passed to renters and could reduce housing investment. Patrick Boyle of COPIC said the bill could expand exposure in medical-negligence cases, increasing insurance and reserve costs for physicians and hospitals.

Sponsors said the bill includes carve-outs excluding ordinary breach-of-contract and negligence claims and limits for professional-services claims without additional deceptive conduct, and they pointed to statutory safeguards such as judicial scrutiny and the requirement that treble damages require a finding of bad faith. Supporters also emphasized that several other states have taken similar steps to broaden private enforcement and that the bill narrows, not widens, some aspects of prior proposals.

After roughly two hours of testimony from more than two dozen witnesses pro and con, Senator Hendrickson moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable verbal recommendation. Roll call recorded votes of No from Senators Bazley, Catlin and Liston and Yes from Senators Judah, Winter, Henrikson and the chair, producing a 4-3 vote to advance the measure.

The bill will next be scheduled for consideration by the Committee of the Whole and may still be amended on the floor or in further committee action.