For Coloradans, litigation ‘dodge bill’ is over for 2026

Colorado businesses spent much of the past 120 days playing “dodge bill” – hoping to avoid the legislature’s seemingly relentless attempts to target employers and producers with new lawsuits.

First, the good news:  Of the bills which sought to expand liability or create new lawsuit claims, far more failed than passed.  CCJL closely monitored about 20 such bills, only six of which will be sent to the Governor.

Pending the Governor’s signature or veto, these two bills present broad new litigation traps for Colorado businesses.

• House Bill 1210 creates new lawsuit risks if an employee or consumer believes a business used technology as “a substantial factor” in setting wages or prices for an individual. Any private business (government employers were exempted) is subject to a “deceptive trade practice” lawsuit if a lawyer and plaintiff(s) can bring a credible allegation.  The complicated definitions in this bill will cause businesses to pay lawyers and consultants to determine whether current or any new procedures run afoul of this legislation.  (Passed House 39-24; passed Senate 19-15.)

• House Bill 1236 applies to any Colorado business seeking to avoid costly lawsuits by using arbitration rather than litigation to resolve disputes. While the bill’s proponents railed against large corporations adding arbitration provisions in the small print of their user agreements, in reality the bill excludes any corporation which operates across state boundaries.  So that leaves our local businesses to question whether or how they can continue to use arbitration as a quicker, less-costly alternative to litigation.  (Passed Senate 19-16; passed House 33-32.)

Now, let’s give credit where it’s due to the bipartisan coalition of lawmakers who helped defeat or significantly revise other bills:

• House Bill 1012 would have subjected vendors at ballgames, concerts, fairs and festivals to class action lawsuits if the prices they charged were more than the average price in that county for the same item. (Died in House Judiciary on a 7-4 bipartisan vote.)

• House Bill 1054 died in the Senate (17-18 vote) on the session’s final day. This bill would have allowed lawsuits claiming unsafe working conditions to be brought even when no one suffered harm and to be brought by any random person (not just affected workers) and by labor organizations.

• House Bill 1261 would have required auto dealers to allow customers to return purchased vehicles after three days, thereby setting a “weekend joy ride” system whereby people could “buy” a vehicle, use it for a few days for travel or as a rideshare, and then force the dealer to refund their down payment and take back the vehicle. Refusing to do so would have triggered “deceptive trade practice” litigation.  House Business Affairs and Labor Committee voted unanimously to defeat this bill.

• House Bill 1426 contained some worthwhile improvements to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, including streamlining the growing list of “deceptive trade practices.” However, it was introduced with a provision to dismantle Colorado’s law that prevents private attorneys from filing “bounty hunter” lawsuits on behalf of state government and then pocketing a percentage of their winnings.  Fortunately, that provision was removed in the House of Representatives.

• House Bill 1196 claimed to protect data privacy for residential tenants, but it would have blindfolded and gagged landlords by limiting their ability to report or find records of tenants’ non-payment of rent. It also subjected landlords to treble damages in lawsuits if they didn’t properly disclose criteria which could be used to deny a rental application.  House members amended the bill to simply require a landlord to comply with court rules on data privacy when filing an eviction or collection lawsuit.

Sadly, however, this year easily constitutes the low-water mark for legislation which CCJL could support.  Just two bills moved Colorado in a positive direction in the civil justice arena:

• House Bill 1421 prohibits ownership or control of a law firm by outside investors. While the business community and plantiffs’ bar rarely see eye to eye, this was that rare case in which both sides agreed that giving non-party “investors” the ability to interfere with the resolution of litigation could potentially harm both plaintiffs and defendants.  Congratulations to sponsors Reps. Javier Mabrey (D-Denver) and Jarvis Caldwell (R-Monument) and Sens. Lindsey Daugherty (D-Arvada) and Lisa Frizell (R-Castle Rock).

• Senate Bill 32 is a modest measure regarding immunization and contained liability protections for those who administer a vaccine according to guidelines. Such bright-line standards for liability are a key to a predictable system of civil justice.  Unfortunately, that element of this much larger measure was overshadowed by debate regarding policies of the current administration in Washington, D.C.  This bill was sponsored by Sens. Daugherty and Kyle Mullica (D-Westminster) and Reps. Lisa Feret (D-Arvada) and Kyle Brown (D-Louisville).