House panel debates delivery‑app price transparency and limits on ‘captive’ markups; bill is postponed

Supporters of House Bill 10‑12 told the House Judiciary Committee the legislation would give consumers clearer information about what they pay on delivery apps and prevent businesses from charging excessive markups where customers have little meaningful choice.

"We want consumers to be able to have a choice and know truly what they are paying for delivery," Representative Kaye said while introducing the measure, summarizing the bill’s two parts: app price transparency and a prohibition on unreasonably excessive pricing in so‑called captive settings.

The sponsors said the bill would require platforms to display the in‑store price alongside the on‑app price, and would clarify that Colorado’s consumer‑protection standard applies in locations such as stadiums, airports, hospitals and correctional facilities. "This bill makes it clear that when you're a captive consumer, being gouged violates that standard," Representative Brett Brown said.

Business groups and venue operators warned the committee that the bill’s breadth and operational requirements could harm small vendors, volunteer‑run events and tourism. Rebecca Hernandez of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers HB 10‑12 "authorizes the state to determine what constitutes unreasonably excessive pricing without clear objective benchmarks" and argued the measure could act as price control that imposes compliance costs on small businesses.

Industry witnesses said the practical mechanics of providing real‑time, item‑by‑item price comparisons to delivery platforms would be difficult for many retailers and could push platforms to limit partnerships to large chains. Andrew Wood of TechNet and Corey Marshall of the Chamber of Progress both urged the committee to weigh implementation burdens and potential loss of options for consumers.

Consumer advocates and legal policy groups countered that opaque app pricing and high markups in captive settings are real problems for people who cannot easily shop around. "These simple protections will ensure that businesses understand the rules of the road and that consumers have the information they need to make rational choices in the market," Nina DeSalvo of Toward Justice said in support.

Sponsors offered and the committee adopted several technical changes during the hearing. Amendment L002 drew a line that the 2,000‑person capacity threshold applies to a single auditorium or arena, exempted state and county fairs, and adopted a 10% threshold tied to existing disaster/pricing language. The committee also adopted an amendment carving out most health‑care services while keeping hospital gift shops and cafeterias within the bill’s scope, and amendments that clarified the definition of ancillary goods and set monthly reporting of merchant prices to delivery platforms to limit real‑time burdens.

After discussion and a roll call, the committee rejected a motion to send HB 10‑12 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation (the roll call was 4‑7 against advancing). Vice Chair Carter then moved, without objection, to postpone the bill indefinitely; the committee adopted that motion and adjourned.

What happened next: House Bill 10‑12 will not advance from this committee at this time. Sponsors said they are open to continued conversations on the definitions, the role of the attorney general in rulemaking, and ways to limit burdens on small vendors.

Votes and formal actions recorded in the hearing:

- Amendment L002 (clarifies capacity, carves out state and county fairs, sets 10% threshold): adopted (recorded vote: 7 yes, 3 no).
- Amendment L005 (limits healthcare scope to hospital gift shops and cafeterias): adopted by voice/no objection.
- Amendments L006 (ancillary‑goods definition) and L007 (monthly reporting standard): adopted by voice/no objection.
- Motion to advance HB 10‑12 to the Committee of the Whole as amended: failed on a 4‑7 roll call.
- Motion to postpone HB 10‑12 indefinitely: adopted without objection; the committee adjourned.

The committee hearing record includes extensive written and in‑person testimony and a mix of industry and consumer perspectives. Sponsors said the bill is meant to restore transparency and fairness, not to set prices, while business groups cautioned about unintended consequences for small vendors and volunteer events.