Senate adopts bill limiting use of surveillance data to set individualized prices and wages

The Colorado Senate on May 5 adopted House Bill 12‑10, legislation that bars companies from using surveillance data and automated algorithms to set individualized prices or wages for consumers and workers.

Senator Weissman, the bill’s floor sponsor, framed the measure as a consumer‑protection update to existing law, saying the state must “establish meaningful guardrails” against a practice she called surveillance pricing. She told colleagues the bill is narrowly drafted with numerous exclusions to avoid overreach and that the Attorney General’s office would enforce the Consumer Protection Act provisions added by the bill.

Supporters described real‑world examples of the harms the bill targets. Senator Jota said algorithms can exploit people in moments of need, recounting scenarios ranging from an ‘‘emergency diaper run’’ to airline tickets priced higher for users whose browsing patterns signaled urgency. “This is what we are trying to avoid here,” Jota said. Senator Kipp urged colleagues not to conflate loyalty programs with the practices the bill forbids, saying, “This bill is not about taking away your rewards programs.”

Opponents warned the statute could sweep too broadly and impose significant compliance costs. Senator Rich moved an amendment to limit liability to cases of knowing use of surveillance data that causes material economic harm; Senator Weissman opposed the change, arguing it would nullify the bill’s effectiveness. That amendment failed.

The Senate considered a series of floor amendments that shaped the final text. The chamber adopted Amendment L18 (technical/clarifying language for gig‑economy relationships and employment definitions) and Amendment L36 (carving insurers, already regulated under a separate insurance‑specific statutory framework, out of HB 12‑10). Attempts to narrow the bill to only price differentials tied to protected characteristics (Amendment L23) and to require intent and material harm (Amendment L19) were rejected on the floor. Amendment L40, clarifying exclusions for lending and naming statutory citations for financial services, was adopted after negotiation with stakeholders.

Senate sponsors and backers said the bill balances protecting consumers from targeted price or wage setting based on intimate digital profiles while preserving ordinary business practices such as loyalty discounts and traditional lending underwriting. Senator Weissman emphasized that the bill already limits scope through detailed definitions and exclusions, and that enforcement would follow the Consumer Protection Act’s established procedures.

After the amendment votes and debate, the Senate adopted the bill as amended. The chair announced that the ayes prevailed and HB 12‑10 was adopted. The bill will proceed per the legislative calendar for enrollment and transmittal to the governor.

What’s next: the bill, as amended on the floor, will be enrolled and transmitted to the governor. Implementation and enforcement questions were a central part of floor debate; the Attorney General’s office remains the likely enforcement authority under the Consumer Protection Act framework cited by sponsors.