CO HB 1210: Prohibit Surveillance Price & Wage Setting

In one paragraph

Colorado's HB 26-1210 would have banned individualized price and wage setting: using an algorithm that applies statistical modeling, data analytics, AI or similar techniques to surveillance data about a person's characteristics, online behavior or biometrics, as more than a de minimis factor in the price offered to a consumer or the wage offered to a worker. Cost-based, supply-and-demand, public-discount, loyalty and need-based pricing, consumer-report credit refusals, and wages based solely on seniority or hired-for tasks and performance with plain-language disclosure, would have been allowed. Violations would have been deceptive trade practices. Vetoed by the Governor on June 2, 2026.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None: the bill was vetoed and never became law. It would have barred businesses from setting individualized prices or wages with algorithms that analyze surveillance data on consumers or workers.

Key provisions

1. 1Would have added Part 19 to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (C.R.S. 6-1-1901 to 6-1-1903) barring any person from individualized price setting or individualized wage setting
2. 2Price or wage setting algorithm (PWSA): any technology, software or computational process that uses statistical modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence or other data processing to analyze surveillance data and is more than a de minimis factor in a price or wage offered to an individual
3. 3Surveillance data: data obtained by observation, inference or surveillance about a consumer's or worker's personal characteristics (including personal, sensitive and genetic data), online behaviors or biometrics, or a group they belong to, including purchased data
4. 4Prices would have been allowed if justified by cost (including ride or delivery distance or time) or supply and demand, or offered as public discounts to all who qualify or to recognized groups (teachers, military, seniors, students, residents), loyalty-program discounts, customer-service credits, need-based discounts, subscriptions not set by a PWSA, or FCRA consumer-report credit decisions; licensed lenders' credit decisions, location used only for jurisdiction, and insurers under § 10-3-1104.9 excluded
5. 5Wages would have been allowed if based solely on the individual worker's seniority or the tasks the worker was hired for (including performance) and disclosed in plain language before hiring; refusals to hire new workers and pay-equity reviews excluded; federal, state and public-entity workers excluded
6. 6Anyone using a PWSA would have had to publish reasonable procedures to ensure data accuracy and to let workers learn what data is used and how, and correct or challenge it
7. 7A violation would have been a deceptive trade practice (§ 6-1-105(1)(ssss)); the Attorney General could adopt rules
8. 8Passed both chambers (House concurred in Senate amendments May 7, 2026); vetoed by the Governor June 2, 2026. It would have taken effect August 12, 2026 and applied to conduct from then on

Latest legislative action

Jun 2, 2026. Governor Vetoed

Sponsors (showing 5 of 38)