Over the years, plaintiff’s attorneys have steadily attempted to chip away at the guardrails that keep Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) claims in check. Over the last few years, the General Assembly has considered a number of bills designed to make it easier to prevail on CCPA claims, increasing litigation risk for businesses across industries, entitling plaintiffs’ to treble damages, and their attorneys to attorneys’ fees and costs. Senate Bill 25-157 is the latest in this long line of plaintiff-friendly legislation. If enacted, it will further tilt the playing field by lowering the bar for proving deceptive trade practices, paving the way for more lawsuits, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees.
Lowering the Bar for CCPA Claims
S.B. 25-157 removes critical defenses that businesses have relied upon for decades. Under current law, claimants must demonstrate that a deceptive act significantly impacts the public — a requirement that serves as an important safeguard against turning every negligent misrepresentation claim into a CCPA, entitling claimants to heightened damages awards to include treble damages and attorneys’ fees. However, S.B. 25-157 changes the rules by establishing that certain evidence automatically constitutes a significant public impact, making it far easier for plaintiffs to establish a claim.
It is important to recall that the Colorado Supreme Court recognized the CCPA’s function to “control various deceptive trade practices in dealing with the public.” People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of America, Inc., 493 P.2d 660, 665 (1972) (emphasis added). To be clear, the CCPA regulates practices which “because of their nature, may prove injurious, offensive, or dangerous to the public.” Id.; see also People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Alpert Corp., 660 P.2d 1295, 1297 (Colo. App. 1982) (noting the substantial public protection emphasis of the CCPA).
If Colorado courts have recognized that the purpose of the CCPA is to protect the public, and violation of the CCPA results in heightened damages, it seems only fitting that plaintiffs seeking to prove CCPA claims have to demonstrate significant public impact caused by a defendant’s actions. See Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998).
The bill also seeks to override legal precedent that has protected businesses from overreach. It ensures that claims based on breach of contract, negligence, or the rendering of professional services can still qualify as deceptive trade practices if they involve a failure to disclose material information or a “material misrepresentation of fact.” The net result? A significant expansion of liability for businesses — including those in construction, real estate, and professional services.
Who’s Behind S.B. 25-157 and Where Does It Stand?
S.B. 25-157, titled “Deceptive Trade Practice Significant Impact Standard,” was introduced on February 5, 2025, and assigned to the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee. The bill’s prime sponsors are Senator Mike Weissman, Senator Julie Gonzales, Representative Javier Mabrey, and Representative Brianna Titone. The first hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2025, at 2:00 pm in the Old Supreme Court chamber.
Part of a Broader Trend
S.B. 25-157 is not an isolated initiative. It follows a clear pattern of legislative efforts aimed at eroding business protections and making it easier to prevail on CCPA claims:
- H.B. 24-1014: This bill sought to eliminate the public impact requirement altogether, a move that would have led to a flood of consumer protection lawsuits over routine business disputes.
- H.B. 23-1192: Another legislative effort designed to expand the scope of the CCPA, raising the risk of litigation for construction professionals.
- S.B. 11-068: A past attempt to remove the public impact requirement, ultimately rejected due to concerns over increased frivolous litigation.
Time and again, these efforts have been pushed by the plaintiffs’ bar, whose interests align with making litigation easier and more lucrative. Unfortunately, the collateral damage is borne by businesses, including those involved in construction and real estate development.
Consequences for the Construction Industry and Affordable Housing
The implications of S.B. 25-157 extend far beyond the courtroom. If passed, the bill will:
- Increase Litigation: By lowering the evidentiary burden, the bill will make it easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys to get treble damages and attorneys’ fees, further incentivizing them to file more lawsuits against builders, contractors, and developers.
- Drive Up Construction Costs: The looming threat of treble damages and attorneys’ fees will force businesses to take more defensive legal postures, ultimately leading to higher insurance premiums and increased project costs.
- Reduce the Availability of Affordable Housing: With litigation risks soaring and costs escalating, many developers will reconsider whether Colorado is a viable market for affordable housing projects.
Colorado is already facing an affordable housing crisis, and S.B. 25-157 will only exacerbate the problem. By making it easier to bring consumer protection claims, the legislature is adding another layer of risk and cost to an industry that is already struggling with supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and regulatory burdens.
Take Action
S.B. 25-157 is another step in the wrong direction, making it easier for plaintiffs to sue businesses, increasing litigation costs, and ultimately driving up the cost of construction and housing. Colorado businesses, contractors, and developers must make their voices heard. We encourage you to contact your state legislator and urge them to oppose S.B. 25-157. Use the following link to find your legislator and express your concerns about this bill: Find My Legislator | Colorado General Assembly.
While consumer protection laws serve an important role in preventing fraud and deceptive practices, they must be balanced against the economic realities facing businesses and industries. S.B. 25-157, like many of its predecessors, threatens to tip the scales too far in favor of litigation, with dire consequences for Colorado’s construction industry and housing market. Lawmakers should reconsider whether making it easier to sue businesses for CCPA claims is worth the inevitable rise in costs and the reduction in housing affordability for everyday Coloradans.
