Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances broad rewrite to modernize Colorado consumer‑protection enforcement
Summary
The Colorado House Judiciary Committee voted 8‑3 to send House Bill 14‑26 — a package of technical updates and substantive changes to consumer‑protection law — to the Committee of the Whole. Sponsors said the bill codifies Smart Act recommendations to clarify the Attorney General's authority, improve interagency coordination and update investigative tools; opponents pressed for limits on contingency fees for outside counsel.
A Colorado House Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 14‑26 on a vote of 8‑3 after a lengthy hearing that mixed technical drafting changes with significant enforcement provisions. The bill is a compilation of recommendations from the Department of Law’s Smart Act review and would modernize the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, clarify subpoena and rule‑making authority, authorize interagency information sharing, and add consumer‑facing disclosure requirements.
Sponsors said the measure is designed to make the department’s statutory authority workable for modern enforcement. The bill sponsor told the committee the text “clarifies authority, improves coordination across agencies and streamlining of processes,” and that the changes are intended to give the Attorney General’s office workable tools for data privacy, consumer protection and fraud prevention. The co‑prime sponsor said the bill establishes a debt‑collection advisory council, modernizes definitions in the Consumer Protection Act and strengthens investigative tools so that enforcement can match the interstate and digital realities of commerce.
Committee members pressed sponsors on several substantive items. Representatives asked why the bill removes a statutory $1,000‑per‑hour cap and allows contingency‑fee contracting for outside counsel; witnesses including the Colorado Bankers Association warned that uncapped contingency arrangements risk large payouts from public‑interest cases and urged additional guardrails. Sponsors and Department of Law witnesses defended contingency agreements as a flexible tool to recruit outside expertise for long, resource‑intensive cases and noted that courts review reasonableness of contingency awards.
Lawmakers also questioned the bill’s changes to subpoena standards and whether broader rule‑making review authority could create staffing or fiscal impacts; sponsors replied that fiscal effects would be captured in fiscal notes when rule‑making authority triggers are used. The bill clarifies interagency sharing to reduce siloed investigations and explicitly authorizes interagency agreements for referrals and joint enforcement efforts.
After testimony from industry witnesses and Department of Law representatives — who described the bill as partly technical cleanup and partly substantive reform based on years of enforcement experience — the committee adopted sponsor amendments and voted to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The committee recorded the passage as 8 in favor and 3 opposed.
The committee’s action advances a bill that blends drafting cleanup with policy changes affecting how Colorado enforces consumer protections and uses outside counsel. The Committee of the Whole will receive the bill next.
