[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6319928,"mediaKeyId","2360208-1d42129ab57c226a755f8a7fc2d28faa","parentId",2360208,"title","House committee advances bill to force disclosure of mandatory \"junk\" fees; sponsors accept broad safe harbors","audioSeconds",592,"startMs",813925,"endMs",1406734,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2360208-1d42129ab57c226a755f8a7fc2d28faa&start=813&end=1406","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2360208-1d42129ab57c226a755f8a7fc2d28faa/thumbnail_813925.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6319928/Colorado/House-committee-advances-bill-to-force-disclosure-of-mandatory-junk-fees-sponsors-accept-broad-safe-harbors","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6319928-d1976a64760b587a5b1e36b56f5bb931/orig.mp4?Expires=1771062176&Signature=BGkFJ3hs5vxnmx8l04uqGUzAXUjysYbzVoIEJiR5DQqjrh6ScthMkJKgt~Lw993heyWz6q4ldPV07jlys8-8cEeOouQimULm6Wa4K392LdaYs1T1y41maUrdo~Gsn1kFXSrcZnqlZv3aEZtIe6p5iiQHfFFGNif2rZwZOd~RSP18atjcXgJEtHekHhSA5ACGWWqUIPm4TkXgOO4RqvbHvuvV0KFMTlmYCAcyYnpBusTDLx9va3HLjbL197nM~jIIFboxx8L1iaMx9ERzxl2HU82fAUCyDbxdGwo3Nb5IsT-2-FTNmDBSKAx~R6xcmm7EXRkPnOP2bRuQ24jufz020A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado Legislature","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","DENVER — The House Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 to send HB25-1090, a bill that would require businesses and landlords to include mandatory nondiscretionary fees in advertised prices, to the Committee of the Whole after a full-day hearing on Oct. 12. Sponsors said the change is designed to prevent consumers from being surprised by added “junk” fees at checkout or after signing a lease.

Why it matters: Tenants and consumer advocates told the committee that undisclosed fees can add hundreds of dollars a month to housing costs and have pushed already-strained households into arrears. Business groups and industry trade associations urged narrower language and safe harbors to avoid duplicative regulation where federal or sector-specific rules already apply. The committee accepted a multi-section amendment that clarifies how the bill applies to restaurants, federally regulated industries and ticketing laws, and that preserves certain existing state carve-outs.

“Increasing costs have been a significant issue in Colorado and across the country,” Representative Sirota, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the panel. “Junk fees are extra charges that are added to your bill or shopping cart that are not clearly disclosed before you make a purchase or sign a lease.” She said the bill’s core goal is price transparency so consumers can compare offers accurately.

What the bill does: As amended in committee, HB25-1090 would:
- Require businesses to disclose the total price of a good, service or rental property when advertising, including mandatory nondiscretionary fees that a consumer must pay regardless of product options.
- Make it an unfair or deceptive trade practice to advertise a price that omits mandatory fees.
- Add landlord-tenant-specific language clarifying which landlord costs must be included in the rent and preserve an administrative $10-or-2% allowance for third-party utility pass-through in certain circumstances; the amendment also clarifies that landlords may not mask costs required by warranty-of-habitability duties as “optional” fees.
- Create safe-harbor language for industries already regulated by federal rules or other state statutes (examples debated at the hearing included airlines, some financial services, and entities subject to federal truth-in-billing rules); restaurants were given an explicit compliance path for service fees so long as the fee is displayed “clearly and conspicuously” and the business describes where the fee is directed.

Who testified: The committee heard more than two dozen live witnesses and many written statements. Tenants from Denver properties testified about large, variable monthly bills described as “common area maintenance,” “service” and third-party utility charges; they said those fees were not disclosed in lease advertising and sometimes triggered eviction notices when tenants fell behind. Tenant organizers from the Denver Metro Tenants Union pressed for the bill’s passage.

Business and industry groups asked for, and won, narrower language in the amendment. Speakers included restaurant owners who use mandatory service fees to raise wages across staff; telecom and pay-TV representatives who said they already comply with federal truth-in-billing rules; and trade groups concerned about unintended overlap with motor-vehicle, hospital and banking disclosure rules.

The Attorney General’s office described the bill as clarifying existing consumer-protection law and said the office supports the transparency objective. “This legislation will ensure individuals or companies are not induced into a transaction they are not prepared for,” a Department of Law attorney told the committee.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved a motion to move HB25-1090, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The roll call was: Yes — Bacon, Clifford, Espinosa, Garcia, Zocai, Carter, Chair; No — Armagost, Caldwell, Kelty, Soper (7–4).

What’s next: Sponsors said they will continue stakeholder conversations before second reading to address remaining technical requests from the health-care, technology and auto dealer sectors.

Why supporters and opponents differ: Supporters say the bill protects consumers and levels the playing field for businesses that already disclose full prices. Opponents, including some business groups, argued the bill as filed was overbroad and would create new private litigation exposure and compliance burdens for small firms; the committee’s amendment was aimed at addressing many of those concerns.

Context and details: Witnesses cited Consumer Reports and Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions as background for why states are acting; the hearing record includes tenant affidavits describing monthly utility-and-fee bills that doubled advertised housing costs in specific cases. Proponents framed the bill as following the model adopted in other states and as a necessary step while federal rulemaking is unsettled.

Ending note: The bill advances with bipartisan support from sponsors and several committee members, and with ongoing industry pushback on scope and exceptions. Sponsors said they will keep working with stakeholders before the measure reaches the House floor.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary [Feb 19, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 to advance HB25-1090, a consumer-transparency measure that would force businesses and landlords to advertise prices that include any mandatory fees, after a daylong hearing with tenants, consumer advocates, and industry representatives.","taxTitle","Judiciary, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43317,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6319923,"Panel divided over tougher penalties for barricading and hostage threats; bill ultimately postponed",2117,878860,2996465,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2360208-1d42129ab57c226a755f8a7fc2d28faa&start=878&end=2996","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2360208-1d42129ab57c226a755f8a7fc2d28faa/thumbnail_878860.jpg","/articles/6319923/Colorado/Panel-divided-over-tougher-penalties-for-barricading-and-hostage-threats-bill-ultimately-postponed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6319923-aa4cd8fe0ac8247b373c2f7c9b9c6155/orig.mp4?Expires=1771062176&Signature=nGmvlq1uMgbJ3~md1IZ~iZR2bGMoou0L5j9xx136LrJ0w0Jgl0mCBtAyHJjlkJJTW8pr2AEFafd-hNsPMt0-yjNu~fUjLgUk96lc~EkigI1XONq~H7ubmDpZM-G-yawSnhnrfLPENRq0qB8xkMrf83~mv348-jDYVzIR8GSKZz2OCboljnD9W13qOkatknRbO6DfVZFbmXOdh1wzYY1IMo8pDzbCM8yGILeoTnGmIL5t8vDtYDZz0MHnjrPUBrtXUZG~0hfRloMEFwQwpcyX0E2CK4qpSPcYhN7~qG7nCvGRybu8K-JNZjv-1yd~8JbSRgIe6Eonoo1uGzNOpmyxxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","DENVER — The House Judiciary Committee spent more than eight hours on HB25-1142, a bill that would increase penalties for people who “use or threaten the use of force” to barricade premises or to hold another person hostage. After competing testimony from sheriffs and SWAT veterans on one side and civil-rights, defense and tenant advocates on the other, the committee first approved a motion to send the bill to appropriations but later voted to postpone the measure indefinitely.

The bill and amendment: Sponsors Representative Brett Phillips and Representative Andrew Armagost framed HB25-1142 as a narrowly targeted tool for dangerous, high-risk standoffs in which occupants refuse to leave and threaten harm. Early in the hearing, sponsors offered a committee amendment that inserts a carve-out stating the subsection does not apply “to activities in connection with a union protest, a labor dispute, or activities in connection with a peaceful protest or demonstration.” The committee adopted a minor conceptual change to remove the words “lawful” and “peaceful” from that carve-out to address concerns raised by civil-liberties witnesses.

Arguments for tougher penalties: Several sheriff’s office witnesses told the committee that barricaded subjects sometimes present guns or otherwise create standoffs that put officers and neighbors in danger. Adams County Sheriff Gene Claps and a SWAT commander described instances in which deputies encountered armed barricaded suspects during evictions and other calls and said the current misdemeanor classification limits available tactical responses and, they argue, increases risk to both officers and the public. “When it was a felony, we had less obstruction, less resistance and less critical incidents,” the sheriff said, describing a spike in obstructive behavior since misdemeanor reclassification under statewide misdemeanor reform.

Arguments against: Lawyers, the ACLU of Colorado, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and public-defender union representatives said the measure would erect a high-risk gateway to felony sentences in cases that often involve mental-health crises, nonviolent protest and homelessness. The defense bar noted the statute contains an unusual element — the prosecutor must prove that a peace officer had probable cause to believe a crime was occurring and that the person was a danger — and urged lawmakers not to increase penalties without careful drafting and data showing a problem that escalation would fix.

Community concerns: Protesters and civil-rights witnesses warned that vague language could chill protected speech or be weaponized against demonstrations. Multiple witnesses cited historical examples of civil disobedience that might meet some of the bill’s factual descriptions, and advocates pointed to high-dollar city settlements from protest-era policing as evidence that escalation and broad new felonies risk costly civil liability.

Committee action and aftermath: The committee initially voted to move the bill to the Committee on Appropriations by a 4–7 margin in the recorded roll call (Yes votes: Armagost, Caldwell, Kelty, Soper; No votes: Bacon, Clifford, Espinosa, Garcia, Zokai, Carter, Chair). Immediately after that vote, a member moved to postpone the bill indefinitely; that motion prevailed and the measure was removed from further consideration at this time.

Why sponsors pressed the case: Sponsors said they were responding to community safety concerns — particularly repeated dangerous standoffs and violent resistance encountered while executing court orders such as evictions — and wanted to make penalties proportional to risk so law enforcement could respond with deliberate callouts rather than riskier dynamic entries.

Why opponents pushed back: Opponents said the bill’s felony penalties would exacerbate problems for people with mental illness, add costs to a criminal justice system already strained, and could be used against lawful protest. Defense lawyers warned elevated felony classifications would increase plea pressure, make trials rarer and create lasting collateral consequences if people convicted of violent or nonviolent barricade-related conduct received felony records.

Final status: After extended debate the committee postponed HB25-1142 indefinitely; sponsors said they will continue stakeholder conversations but the bill will not advance at this time.

","The House Judiciary Committee considered HB25-1142, which would raise penalties for barricading and hostage-like conduct, but after lengthy testimony from law enforcement and civil-rights advocates the panel ultimately postponed the bill indefinitely.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House committee advances bill to force disclosure of mandatory "junk" fees; sponsors accept broad safe harbors

Panel divided over tougher penalties for barricading and hostage threats; bill ultimately postponed