The Senate moved forward on a bill to expand private enforcement under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by removing the court-created requirement that plaintiffs prove a “significant public impact” before bringing an action. Sponsor Senator Rachel Weisman and co-prime Senator Gonzales said the change restores consumers’ ability to vindicate harms in court when they have been the target of deceptive or fraudulent business practices.

Following extensive floor debate about breadth and possible unintended consequences, senators adopted a narrowing amendment (L6) that limits the restored private remedy to groups the sponsors and staff identified as disproportionately targeted by fraud: senior citizens (age 60+), currently serving service members, veterans and gold-star spouses, people with disabilities and pregnant individuals. Supporters cited Federal Trade Commission data showing elevated complaint rates and losses in those groups. “If we can’t vindicate our rights, we consign people to an unequal remedy,” Sen. Gonzales said on the floor.

Opponents — notably lawmakers with business, medical and defense‑industry constituencies — argued that the bill would invite litigation, increase insurance and compliance costs, and create a significant “chilling effect” on providers and small businesses. Senators warned of higher premiums, “social inflation” (rising litigation and jury awards), and the potential for proliferation of cases where plaintiffs may litigate for settlement rather than pursuing meritorious claims to trial.

Key floor actions
- The Senate adopted amendment L6 narrowing the class of persons eligible to bring private consumer protection actions without the “significant public impact” showing.
- A later attempt to require the Attorney General to produce a before-and-after filing report (amendment L003) failed in committee/on the floor; sponsors suggested judicial branch case-data queries were a more direct path for collecting baseline figures.

Why it matters: Supporters say the change restores a civil remedy that was restricted by a 1998 Colorado Supreme Court decision; opponents say it will increase litigation costs for a broad set of businesses and professionals and could drive up insurance and healthcare costs. The Senate debate reflected a tradeoff between consumer access to remedies and concerns about the economic and coverage consequences of permitting broader private litigation under the statute.

What’s next: The bill passed the Senate with the adopted narrowing amendment and will proceed to the House. Backers and opponents signaled plans to pursue further amendments in the next chamber and to press for clarifying language on caps and treble‑damages standards in order to limit unintended consequences.

Ending: The Senate’s narrow vote to move the bill forward leaves the issue open for the House to consider more detailed guardrails, reporting requirements and possible budgetary offsets to address stakeholder concerns.