House Business Affairs & Labor [Mar 12, 2026]

You guys good?

You guys good? Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

Ms. Jawara, please call the roll.

English. Excuse.

Good afternoon.

Nabry. Here.

Morrow. Here.

Ryden. Present.

Weinberg. Excuse.

And Mr. Chair. Here.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. At the outset, I think it's important to recognize that today we are talking about a strike below. We're bringing a strike below amendment. So the bill is the strike below. And we are bringing this based on extensive stakeholder feedback. We have worked extensively with a number of groups to respond to concerns they had in the original draft. We will walk through more in depth, specifically what groups suggested what changes, but we've done our best to be responsive to stakeholder feedback while maintaining the core of what this legislation is supposed to do. So I am super excited to present House Bill 1210. This is our second year working on this piece of legislation and is so critically important because the reality is that our phones have become extensions of our brains. We put our most intimate thoughts into them, our texts, our searches, our locations, and the biggest companies in the world are collecting that data and selling it to other companies who are using it to determine how much to pay us how much to charge us for things like plane tickets groceries the medicine you need when your kid is sick And this isn't science fiction. This isn't something out of the Minority Report. It's real, and it is called surveillance pricing. It's happening right now. And today, no doubt, you will hear from people who are concerned about the bill that surveillance pricing is about innovation or discounts. But the largest companies in the world are not investing millions of dollars into this technology to make less money. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to drive profits up. These tools exist to take advantage of our personal data to set individualized prices based not on the laws of supply and demand or a free market, but based on our individual pain points. that distinction is at the heart of this bill in a fair market prices move based on supply and demand when demand rises prices rise for everyone equally when supply rises prices come down for everyone that is how markets are supposed to work what surveillance pricing does fundamentally is different it doesn't adjust prices based on market conditions it adjusts prices based on you who you are, what you are going through, how desperate you may be at any given moment, that is not the free market. That is economic exploitation dressed up with technology. That is the gamification of our economy. And if we don't act as the state of Colorado, these practices will accelerate. Every year the data gets more granular, the algorithms get more sophisticated, the gap between what these corporations know about us and what we know about what they're doing grows wider. The window to establish meaningful guardrails is now, before this becomes so embedded in our economy that it is impossible to unwind. So I want to talk a little bit about how this mechanism works in the strike below. Companies collect what this bill defines as surveillance data, your personal characteristics, your online behaviors, biometrics, things like your browsing history, purchasing patterns, financial circumstances. That data then gets fed into what the bill calls a price or wage setting algorithm, which is a computational process that uses data analytics to analyze the surveillance data and then play a substantial role in deciding what you are charged. When that algorithm produces a price that is tailored to you as an individual, that is what is individualized price setting, and that is what this bill prohibits. The same applies to wages. This bill prohibits individualized wage setting using surveillance data algorithms to determine what a worker gets paid. This is important because in 2024, there was a study that tested this with rideshare drivers in Los Angeles. Drivers sat together in a room and searched for rides at the same time. 63% of the time, one driver was offered less money for the same exact ride. Companies are using personal data to charge the rider as much as possible while paying the driver as little as possible without either side knowing. Think about what this means for working families. You can't budget when the price of the same item changes based on who's looking at it. You can't plan when your paycheck is determined by an algorithm that you can't see. Surveillance pricing strips away the basic predictability that families depend on to make ends meet. This is a kitchen table issue because families can budget the price of a kitchen table if the price of the kitchen table keeps changing These practices don just hurt consumers and workers and I think this is a critical thing for this committee to consider. They also hurt small businesses. Local businesses do not have millions to spend collecting intimate data about their consumers. Surveillance pricing gives massive advantages to the biggest corporations and accelerates the consolidation of our economy into fewer and fewer hands. How can a local competitor get a foothold if the largest companies control oceans of personal data and use it to squeeze consumers and box their competitors out? This bill recognizes legitimate business practices. Supply and demand fluctuations are protected. Senior discounts, military discounts, student discounts are protected. Loyalty programs with publicly disclosed terms, protected. We worked on an amendment with that with Ibotta and others. Cost justified based on delivery distance, time protected. Performance paid tied to actual work, person was hired to do, protected. This bill is not about ending discounts or dynamic pricing. It's about ending the use of your surveillance data to figure out the maximum price you specifically will pay will pay or the minimum wage you specifically will accept. Now, I also want to be clear about one thing. Colorado already prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices under Section 61105. There is a strong argument that surveillance pricing using a person's individualized data already falls within the scope of an unfair and deceptive trade practice. But the problem is companies are hiding behind complex algorithms in black boxes. We need to modernize our law to reflect the rapid-changing technology that is giving companies the ability to circumvent what we as a legislator have already said what is protected. When Instacart announced it would use AI to set grocery prices, customers were furious and the company reversed course. As the New York Times put it, this issue sits at the intersection of two things the American people hate, being scammed and being spied on. When people understand what this practice really is, they understand how harmful it could be, people do not want to be ripped off by being spied on. This bill puts Colorado on the right side of that fight, and it's time for us to have the courage to push back. Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.

now for questions thank you committee members thank you sponsors committee just one note strike below amendment was previously distributed you should have a a copy of that. Sponsors, I'm assuming that your comments and testimony and the questions we will have for you will also be directed to that strike below as opposed to the bill as introduced and just wanted to flag that for the committee. Committee, questions for our bill sponsors?

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate that question, Representative Brooks. So first I will point you to the specific instance that you described, and you did recognize that maybe it wasn the best example But I think that the specific instance that you described would be exempted by one of our exemptions on page three of the strike below All members of a broadly defined and publicly recognized groups of consumers, including but not limited to, and then it lists a bunch. And so folks who are on SNAP benefits would likely would fit within that definition. The other thing that I would say is, and I need to pass this out to you all. I had passed this out to the Dems earlier. I'll bring a copy of this over. This bill does not prevent discounts. This bill prevents a series of steps where your surveillance data is being put into a price and wage algorithm, and then that surveillance data put through that algorithm is the substantial factor that then sets an individualized price for you. So what you're talking about is a group of people who maybe have, you know, food stamps or something like that. Not only do I think that fits within the express exemption of the bill, I also do not think that that's individualized enough to fit within the scope of what we're trying to regulate. Further questions from the sponsors?

I'd like to answer that. Representative Mabry. Representative Richard, the word widget is a little triggering for us over here. I just want to note that. But proceed, Representative Mabry.

Representative Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious, how would we know? How would we know if this happened to us and we have a case to be made?

AML Bacon. Thank you. And here's what I'll say kind of like in lay terms around this. You know, when we have consumer protection laws, what usually triggers them are kind of like noticing trends, right? At the end of the day, the way people know that this happens, you'll hear from people today. We will both be sitting here trying to buy something or get a ride, and we will have two different prices to the same place. Does that make sense? We may both want to buy, I don't know, we both like Adidas for some reason. Yes. His will be $10 less than mine because they know how much time I spend on the screen looking for them. Those are the ways that you trigger notice of this. I think what's important in regards to discovering going up the chain, what you do is go through discovery. You make an allegation and you look through it. For what it's worth, we're having a lot of conversations elsewhere in this building about disclosures for this very point. People and businesses need to disclose to you when they are using these algorithms. Otherwise, we have to dig and dig and look for them when we know there are different outcomes. And so a big part of this bill, too, when it comes to the wage side, includes disclosures. Does that make sense? And so I do think that part of the litigation in this space is asking the question, Here are two people doing an objectively same thing that have different wages and prices. How does your platform or how was that determination made? And you can compel to look for that information. But what this bill does is it names the practice as well. And it also pushes us, particularly in the wage space, to also recognize that there is something, whether it is AI driven or an algorithm that is driving it, that we can call it. And there is also something that we can say about the need for disclosures as well. So that is why this bill is also important. And so this goes back to what you heard Marco Prime saying earlier. There's an argument that it's already covered. But we need to name these things so we can have the better articulations,

Representative Sucla Thank you Mr Chair So I an auctioneer and I been doing it a long time But I do a farm auction and I have a row of 10 20 tractors I'll be selling the one tractor, and then I'll look down the row of four or five, and if I see two or three guys or women, they're standing by that tractor, kind of looking at the tires and stuff. That triggers to me that when I get to that tractor, they're going to be interested in bidding on that tractor. And so I pick them out in the crowd, and then I do my auctioneering thing. But I've already – it's triggered to me doing it for a long time that I know that they're interested in that tractor. I'm trying to figure out why is this different than the way that I perform my profession. I'd like to answer that question.

Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just wanted to ask one question in terms of the overall conception we have here that the surveillance pricing is automatically meant to extract the highest price possible. But it seems like the opposite is also likely the case when you say the maximum pain point. If they know the person won't pay that price, that they will drop it and drop it until they get the person to buy the product. So they're not just trying to make more money by having a higher price on the product. they're trying to move more product so it was Woolworth was famous saying better to get faster nickels than slow dimes. I mean, if they're able to sell products where they wouldn't otherwise because they'd find the lower price point, someone would pull the trigger. That's how they can make increased money rather than just trying to extrapolate the highest price for every item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Marshall, for the question. So the main thing that I would say to that is I would say there is nothing preventing companies with or without this law from providing discounts on equal terms for their products if they're not moving their products quickly enough. What is troubling to me is that prices are being set based on insider information, based on things that we do not expect retailers or stores to know about us. My Google search history. The fact that I got an email that had funeral arrangements in it, and then that might suggest that I need a plane ticket, right? The fact that we heard a little bit about this yesterday from the Uber drivers, right? The fact that they might know my bank account might be overdrawn, right? These sorts of private pieces of information are being purchased and used to set prices for us. I think far, far, far more often than not, that is going to be to the detriment of the consumer. And when you're talking about a business needing to move product, again, there's nothing in here preventing them from coming up with a myriad of strategies to reduce prices to move product as long as you're not in the link of definitions here.

Representative Froelich. No.

Thank you, Chair Basinecker, members of the committee. My name is Joshua Mantel, and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Bell Policy Center. The Bell Policy Center provides policymakers, advocates, and the public with reliable resources to create a practical policy agenda that promotes economic mobility for every Coloradan. I'm here to testify in support of HB 1210, and thank you to Representatives Mabry and Bacon for bringing this bill forward. Ensuring that companies are not able to use personal characteristics to reduce wages for workers or increased costs for consumers is common sense, and we appreciate that this bill is working to ensure that discrimination by another name does not thrive here in Colorado. I was fortunate enough to testify on a similar bill brought last year and feel strongly that this policy is right for Coloradans. Last year, we heard businesses say that this bill was harmful because it would prevent coupons or harm their company's ability to provide discounts, and while that was never the intent of the legislation we appreciate the sponsors working to clear up these misconceptions within the bill With consumer protection being dismantled more and more every day at the federal level it has never been more important for Colorado to lead the way for consumers workers and small businesses who cannot dictate market conditions like large corporations. With regard to issues such as these around consumer protection, we at the Bell have felt it important to think of small businesses in the same way as consumers. Small businesses, like consumers, buy from larger corporations. Small businesses also cannot wield the data and market share that larger businesses can, and those small and local businesses get pushed out of the market by the bigger businesses. It'd be hard to imagine a true small business being able to afford not only the technology that it would take to personalize prices and wages for individuals, but to also deploy that information in a large scale way. Our data is everywhere. And while that is partly the price to pay for living in this digital age, we cannot let those personal and unique characteristics that are harvested across the internet reduce wages for workers or increase prices that we pay for necessary goods. that data should not be able to be used against us. The market dictates wages and prices, not algorithms. For a true free market to flourish, we need to ensure that everyone gets the same information and big corporations cannot rig the system for their own profit. We stand strongly behind HB 1210 and ask you to vote yes on this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nina DeSalvo. I'm an attorney and the policy director with Towards Justice. I'm here to encourage you to support House Bill 1210. House Bill 1210 is about ensuring that Colorado consumers can get discounts without sacrificing their privacy. And that Colorado workers can work without being subjected to constant surveillance. Just the other day, I bought a new dress. Mostly because it's the middle of session and I'm thinking about summer vacation. But I declined to get the offered $10 discount because the only way to get the discount was to give them my personal information. It shouldn't be that way. Indeed, it used to be illegal for an employer to follow a worker home who they suspected of union organizing to see what they were up to in their off hours. Now, employers can purchase your social media data, determine what petitions you sign, what events you attend, and who your friends are. But worse, they can use that data to determine how much to pay you. The invasive surveillance is disturbing, but more disturbing is how the largest corporations in our economy are using that data to reach into our wallets. This bill may not be able to stop corporate spying, but it can at least prevent retailers and employers from using rapidly advancing technology to quote-unquote optimize or individualize the prices we pay and the wages we earn in ways that extract more and more money from regular Coloradans and transfer it into the coffers of some of the wealthiest corporations in human history. House Bill 1210 guards against this behavior, protecting our privacy by making surveillance less profitable. No longer would businesses be allowed to charge someone with celiac disease more for gluten-free products just because they know they would pay it. No longer will gig companies be allowed to offer lower wages to a worker who just requested a pay advance. And that seems essential to our basic understanding of economic fairness. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Elsa Gartenman, and I'm the Youth Advocacy and Britain Communications Coordinator for the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition. I here today to highlight why regulating surveillance price and wage setting is critical to the economic equity of people with disabilities Consumers with disabilities are not price sensitive to essential goods and services because we have greater resources Rather we are sensitive because our survival often depends on them. Assistive technology, accessible transportation, and medical supplies and more are not optional purchases for us. When a product or service is necessary for daily living and isn't available, the ability to simply shop elsewhere often does not exist. Surveillance price setting systems are designed to analyze vast amounts of personal data to predict exactly how much an individual is willing to pay. When companies use disability-related indicators, these systems can identify individuals who cannot easily substitute or delay purchases. This makes people with disabilities uniquely vulnerable to being charged higher prices precisely because their needs are unavoidable. In other words, this technology dystopically identifies who has the least ability to say no. This creates a deeply troubling situation, technologies that monetize disability. Instead of removing barriers, these systems risk turning disability into a signal for higher prices and worse economic treatment. Allowing companies to algorithmically exploit someone's medical needs, mobility needs, or accessibility requirements results in a system where discrimination can happen quickly, automatically, and at scale. Without guardrails, companies may have both the technical ability and the financial incentive to charge people with disabilities a higher price simply because their needs are predictable and unavoidable. Preventing surveillance price and wage setting is therefore not only a consumer protection issue, it is a disability rights issue. Technology should not be allowed to identify people's vulnerabilities and turn them into profit opportunities. With that being said, I ask you for a yes vote on House Bill 26-1210. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Please hold for

of Colorado, here today in support of HB 1210. The Women's Foundation is the only statewide community-funded foundation dedicated to protecting the progress and expanding economic opportunity for all Colorado women. Research shows us that economic systems that disadvantage small businesses and low-wage workers disproportionately harm women. Surveillance price setting poses real risks for women entrepreneurs and consumers because in Colorado, more than 40 percent of small businesses are owned by women, and many small business owners cannot afford to engage with these complex surveillance pricing systems. When large companies use these technologies, small businesses must compete on unequal footing. As consumers, surveillance price setting means women often face paying higher prices for necessities, such as higher prices charged for period products when we're menstruating. Or in my case, because I have celiac disease, an incurable condition that requires a strict gluten-free diet, I pay prices for gluten-free staples such as bread, flour, or pasta that are twice as much or more, but I cannot choose a cheaper gluten-containing alternative. Surveillance wage setting similarly harms workers who are already economically vulnerable. Low-wage workers are disproportionately women. Women continue to be paid less than men. And a recent study found a 7% gender pay gap among Uber drivers, which is supposed to be gender neutral. Allowing employers to use surveillance tools to suppress wages risks deepening and widening the pay gap. 1210 protects Coloradans from predatory business practices and helps ensure a competitive marketplace that supports workers consumers entrepreneurs and women businesses I thank you for your consideration and ask for your yes vote Thank you for your testimony Committee we have four witnesses in front of us

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rebecca Hernandez, and I am here today on behalf of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce in strong opposition to House Bill 1210. Colorado lawmakers have spent a great deal of time this session talking about affordability and the cost of living facing our residents. That conversation is important, and we appreciate the legislature's focus on helping consumers. But I want to make one point very clear. Policy should not simply be in the name of consumers. It should be on behalf of the consumers. And unfortunately, House Bill 1210 risks doing the opposite. Even with the amendment before the committee today, this bill broadly restricts how business can offer prices, promotions, and wages when those decisions rely on data or modern pricing tools. In today's economy, many businesses use technology and analytics to better understand their customers and compete in the marketplace. Those tools often allow businesses to offer targeted discounts, rebates, coupons, and promotional offers that keep money in the consumer's pockets. These are not predatory practices. They are pro-consumer tools businesses use every day to compete for customers and help people stretch their budget. But House Bill 1210 creates broad and vague restrictions combined with automatic statutory damages and significant litigation risk. Even with amendments, that kind of legal uncertainty will cause many businesses to reconsider or scale back programs that offer targeted discounts and incentives. When that happens, consumers lose access to the very savings opportunities that help them manage rising costs. Just as importantly, this bill establishes a concerning precedent. Even if amendments are offered, they cannot fix the core issue at the heart of this legislation. It opens the door for government to limit how businesses compete on price and what types of offers they can make to their customers. Colorado has long benefited from a competitive marketplace where businesses innovate to attract consumers, often through discounts, incentives, and creative pricing strategies that ultimately benefit consumers. House Bill 1210 moves us away from that model and toward a framework where the government is effectively determining which pricing practices are acceptable. We respectfully ask a no vote for House Bill 1210.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members, Ted Lottie on behalf of the Colorado Association of Home Builders here in respectful opposition to the bill. We believe the definitions of the bill are still way too broad and very confusing. What is individualized pricing in a home sale that is inherently negotiated? We cannot afford to risk any further exposure to deceptive trade practices, claims, even those that may ultimately be dismissed. The bill does add uncertainty and increase liability in an already very unsurprisingly. market. We do use data firms that use data analytics, geotargeting and tracking to pull consumer data. If a builder were to use that data to help determine their market or the qualifications of a buyer or set their prices accordingly, or if they were to geotarget the suitable demographics that agree with the market they're in or the price points of their homes, would they run afoul of the law? It seems so. Ultimately, we don't know. Again, the bill is confusing. What we are sure about is that we don't want to learn what these definitions mean when we receive a Consumer Protection Act claim that does

Good afternoon. Corey Marshall with the Chamber of Progress, a tech trade association fighting for access, fighting so that all Americans can have access to technological advances. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to HB 1210. We share the committee's concern about affordability, but good policy requires evidence of harm and after years of headlines about surveillance pricing that evidence simply does not exist. No one has demonstrated that consumers are being systematically overcharged through personalized pricing. Not the FTC report, which documented that the capability exists but stopped well short of finding that it's harming consumers at scale. Not the Instacart study, whose own authors acknowledged the price differences they found couldn't be linked to consumer characteristics. You know, we heard the sponsors make a lot of claims about surveillance pricing today, but they just didn't present any evidence to support their claims. The fundamental problem with this bill is that it bans all individualized pricing without distinguishing between using data to charge a consumer more and using data to offer them a deal. Any bill that treats price increases and price decreases the same way will inevitably capture consumer savings. The sponsors also talked about big corporations who engage in surveillance pricing. Well, I'll tell you just a couple of weeks ago I signed up for this small little small hometown 10 miler And when I didn't move when I didn't process the payment They they emailed me a 15% discount and then I move forward with securing my spot in the race For all these reasons we urge you to oppose HB 1210. It is not a good bill

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, I'm Rachel Beck with the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. We are opposed to the bill because it does not allow businesses to be responsive to customer needs or to use common beneficial business practices. As my colleague noted, there is much more speculation than evidence about what personal data is being collected and used, including in the FTC report that has been much cited in this discussion. Our members tell us that the data that they are collecting allows them to provide better customer service and offers that are tailored to their needs and their interests. We really appreciate the sponsor's efforts to address business concerns.

But what we're hearing from our businesses is that the definitions are still too broad, and as a result they are likely to scale back or to stop offering targeted discounts because they not sure they can comply with a lot of the terms that are still in the bill They also worried about the risk of legal action because the bill has labeled some of these practices as deceptive trade practices We're also concerned that some of the tenants of the bill conflict with the work of the AI task force that is still underway. It's taking a very broad approach to ensuring that data use requirements align with our data privacy laws and existing procedures on how people correct incorrect data. I want to rattle off a few examples and specifics in my last 30 seconds here. The bill bans the use of purchase history, which businesses use to determine coupon offers and to get the lowest price for goods that they need or frequently buy. If you add to that brand engagement, subscription status, regional discounts, and platform history, our businesses estimate that you're excluding millions of customers from eligibility for retail discounts. Automated decision system is still sweeping in any kind of software that does data collection. The wage definition is still including task assignment. Safety is gone. And last one, if you'll indulge me, Mr. Chair, surveillance still includes a manager observing how employees do their work with the naked eye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My apologies for not being there in person. My name is Brittany Morris-Saunders. I'm the President and CEO of the Colorado Technology Association. CTA represents nearly 400 member companies and organizations across the state, representing more than 50,000 direct employees in Colorado's technology community and representing both small and large technology companies. First, I want to acknowledge the sponsors and stakeholders who worked to develop the amendments released this week, we appreciate the effort to clarify several provisions, including definitions, loyalty program and customer service discount language, and enforcement. The updated language did address some of the concerns raised by members of our association. However, CTA and many of our members continue to have serious concerns with the bill as amended. As mentioned by my colleagues on the panel, several definitions remain broad. The bill restricts individualized price setting when an algorithm analyzes surveillance data and plays a significant role in determining a price or wage offered to an individual. Because surveillance data can include a wide range of information about individuals or groups, including online behaviors, the bill could still capture routine business practices. Businesses often offer discounts or promotions based on customer engagement, purchase history, regional campaigns, or voluntary participation in loyalty or subscription programs, as mentioned. These practices are widely used and help consumers access discounts. While the amendments clarify exemptions for loyalty, customer service, membership, and rewards programs, the framework remains relatively narrow. Many promotions, including those based on brand engagement, subscription participation, or platform activity, may not clearly fit within those categories. CTA supports the goal of protecting consumers from unfair practices. However, even with the amendments before you today, House Bill 1210 remains overly broad and could unintentionally restrict routine business practices that benefit consumers and help keep goods and services affordable. For these reasons, CTA respectfully urges the committee to vote no on House Bill 1210. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your

committee My name is Amy Boss I the vice president of government affairs at NetChoice a trade association dedicated to free enterprise and free speech online We respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB 1210 because it would eliminate commercial practices that genuinely help Colorado consumers The bill broadly prohibits the use of surveillance data in automated decision systems to set individual prices or wages, but the definition of surveillance data includes information derived from consumer behavior or characteristics sweeping in a wide range of ordinary pro-consumer business practices that have nothing to do with exploitative conduct the sponsors rightly want to address. While the bill does attempt to protect uniform group discounts for students, seniors, it fails to protect the more targeted practices that deliver the deepest savings to budget conscious consumers. Personalized coupons based on customers actual purchase history. The grocery app that knows you buy diapers and sends you a deal on diapers. Retention and win back offers a streaming service offering a lapsed subscriber, a discounted rate of return. HB 1210 is motivated by concerns about so-called surveillance pricing, the idea that companies secretly charge consumers the maximum price they are willing to pay. While this concept has generated headlines, there is limited evidence that it is widespread practice in competitive markets. In fact, the opposite is often true. Online markets are highly transparent and customers can easily compare prices across multiple sellers. Businesses, therefore, have strong incentives to lower prices and offer discounts to attract customers. The bill's $10,000 per transaction penalty and private right of action don't just threaten bad actors. They threaten every Colorado business using standard commercial software, creating massive liability for genuinely beneficial conduct. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on HB 1210.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do just want to note quickly that in the stakeholder conversations, one of the largest pieces of concern that we heard was that private right of action, which was just mentioned in the last piece of testimony. It is no longer in the bill in response to that feedback. I do have a question for Mr. Marshall. You testified that businesses use this data to offer discount, but a discount is a reduction from a set price. If prices themselves are being individualized, whether or not you call it market targeting, if it changes based on who looks at it, then there is no fixed price to discount from. So my question is, how does a consumer know whether they were receiving a discount or simply being showed a manipulated price? If they can't tell the difference, isn't that exactly the kind of deceptive practice our consumer protection laws are designed to prevent? No, it was not a deceptive...

Corey Marshall. Thank you so much. No, it was not a deceptive practice when I signed up for a 10-mile race, a small race that 300 people are going to run. One second.

and I didn't like the price of it when I was signing up, and later received a 15% discount via email. When I received that discount, I was happy to move forward with my purchase. under this bill, those opportunities would not exist anymore. I also grew up in a single-parent household where our ability to thrive and live hinged upon my mom being able to get discounts, maybe through surveillance. Under this bill, she wouldn't have had those opportunities.

Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for anyone on the panel. An area that hadn't been discussed, but I'm curious about a lot of us shop by Internet these days, not necessarily from companies originating in Colorado. Could the complexity of this for nationwide or multi-state companies lead to folks just carving out sales to customers in Colorado to save the risk of legal entanglements? Who would like to respond to that?

Thank you, Rep. Richardson, for the question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, absolutely. Colorado could absolutely be carved out of these incentives and coupon codes and offers. What I will also say, though, is that large corporations ultimately have compliance departments and legal departments and will adapt to this policy. Who is really going to be most impacted by this policy are the small businesses, the coffee shop around the corner who gives you your tenth cup of coffee for free. And those are the folks who are going to have trouble complying with those programs, and they are ultimately going to lose customers because they cannot keep up with the constant state regulatory burdens that their small business is having to take the brunt of. Thank you.

Seeing none, we thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, we're going to go back to a panel of supporters. I'd like to call up Robert Lindgren. I think online Zephyr Teachout and you'll forgive me your last name but with a last name like Basinecker I think I've got a little karma in this space Grace Gedye Kathleen Forsyth as well please Great, and I might call a couple more people up in person just to make sure we're maximizing our time here. In person, could I also call up Charles Brennan and Travis Hall? And we'll have room for one more. Anaya Robinson, please. Great. We'll start in person. Mr. Lindgren, if you could introduce yourself, who you represent. The floor is yours for two.

Thank you. Please hold for questions. Next, please state your name for the record,

Thank you for your testimony. Next, please state your name for the record and who you represent.

Thank you for your testimony. Please hold. Next, Mr. Brennan, please proceed.

Thank you for your testimony. Please hold for questions. Let's go online. Looks like we have Grace Geddy. You have two minutes. Please correct my pronunciation of your last name and the floor is yours.

committee members. Thank you for your testimony. Last but not least, let's go to

Thank you for your testimony. Committee, we have four people in person, two online questions for this panel of witnesses.

A discount is a reduction from a known price, but if the price itself is being set by an algorithm based on a consumer's personal data, there's no known price. So how is a consumer supposed to distinguish between a genuine discount and a price that was simply manipulated to look like one?

As I understand the bill, it was very carefully crafted to define the kinds of criteria which cannot be used to shape the price and that those criteria are then the excluded or denied criteria. And again, although it's a very different bill, this is somewhat similar in kind to how price gouging laws work. And price gouging laws also rely on identifying a baseline price, but have sort of excluded grounds on which you can do pricing.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for taking the time today. My name is Parker White. I serve as the director of the Colorado Competitive Council. C3 represents businesses from across Colorado that care deeply about maintaining a competitive and responsible business climate in our state. If House Bill 26-12-10 were narrowly focused on preventing true algorithmic discrimination against individuals based on protected characteristics, there would likely be broad agreement. Unfortunately, after the strike below amendment, the bill still goes well beyond that goal and creates significant unintended consequences for consumers and businesses alike. The bill continues to prohibit common pro-consumer practices that help Colorado families save money. When a grocery store sends a diaper coupon to a household with a baby, that's a consumer benefit. When an online retailer offers a price decrease after someone leaves an item in a cart, that helps consumers complete purchases they might otherwise abandon. And when a subscription service offers a reduced price to bring back a former customer, that's standard competitive marketing. Each of these practices benefit consumers and businesses engage in them to build customer loyalty, build brands, and expand consumer bases. All of these practices rely on basic personalization, yet under the bill's current structure, many of them would be treated as unlawful. The core problem is that this bill treats almost any differential treatment as a potential discrimination. Colorado families benefit from targeted offers driven by data every day. Businesses are in competition with each other for an increasingly highly mobile consumer base. The opportunity for companies to reach consumers is at an all-time high, as is the product and service knowledge that consumers have at their fingertips. Those items mean that data drives competitive pricing, and competitive pricing creates a mutually beneficial system of both high sales and lower prices. House Bill 261012 risks eliminating many of those benefits while creating uncertainty for businesses in the greater economy, and we respectfully request a no vote today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Katie Wolfe, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Retail Council in opposition to House Bill 1210. The Colorado Retail Council represents retailers across the state, including grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, online retailers, and many nationally owned and locally loaned businesses that serve billions of Colorado consumers every day. I want to thank Representative Mabry and AML Bacon for working with us on this bill. The Retail Council shares the goal of protecting consumers and ensuring responsible use of data and technology. However, with the strike below, it's still written broadly enough that it would unintentionally restrict common tools that help lower prices for consumers and help businesses manage their workplaces effectively. First, the bill could eliminate many of the personalized discounts and loyalty rewards that consumers rely on. Retailers use data to offer targeted coupons, loyalty points, and promotional pricing that allow shoppers to save money. If businesses are restricted from using the systems that support these tools, consumers could see fewer discounts and higher baseline prices. Second, the bill's definitions are still too broad. The term automated decision system could include ordinary business software tools that analyze data. The definition of surveillance data and the bill in the strike below could include routine observations about employee performance or customer behavior And as a result everyday tools like HR systems scheduling software and retail analytic platforms could fall under the bill Third, the workplace provisions go beyond regulating technology. They would regulate how managers make routine decisions, such as raises, promotions, work assignments, and employee scheduling. The level of prescriptive regulation could make it harder for businesses to evaluate employees holistically and reward strong performance. Finally, Colorado already has major laws governing AI and data use, including the Colorado Privacy Act and the AI Act from two years ago. House Bill 1210 would create a third overlapping regulatory framework, adding complexity and compliance costs for businesses operating in our state. We appreciate the amendment's attempt to narrow the bill, but the continued potential for private litigation under the Consumer Protection Act still creates significant liability risks, and for that reason, we still remain respectfully opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Taylor Newsom. I represent myself as a private citizen and an Uber driver, and I am technically 100% opposed to this bill. I'm just trying to find a way to say yes, which is why I'm on the amendment side. And the reason why is because at the end of the day, no one still can name one criminal case that Phil Weiser, anyone in Colorado, nationally. we even go in the world just give me one criminal case that every single thing that this bill is trying to solve and help that someone legally has said yeah this corporation is discriminating based on individual price and we can follow the paper trail that is the last key piece of information and i'm kind of missing to tie this all together and the reason why is because yes i'm an uber driver but because i drive for uber that has allowed for me to start my own small business i'm travel agent. One of the very first things I did was, who in America wants to come to Colorado? Let me do that search by zip code. And wow, I found all of this information that's out there. But that's me as a small business owner paying $35 to get access to it. And because of that, I've been able to grow 30% year over year. But even with the strike through amendments, even someone as simple as me is, hey, I want to be a construction. I want to be a travel agent. and I want to do this, you're even preventing people like me from using some of the tools that are out there? And that's why I question if it's so wrong and bad, name one criminal case that has also proven that. And as of right now, I don't have that information. But the reason why it's amend and the reason why I say amend is because I think the entire bill should be scrapped, started over, and the only thing we should be talking about is let's just define what discrimination is can i use my phone to say who can travel to colorado can i use information uh such as what what zip code taylor is in and that's some of the things that the stakeholders have been talking about but i would really love to see that definition fleshed out thank you for

the floor is yours for two minutes mr chair members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 1210. My name is Andrew Wood, and I'm the Executive Director for TechNet Central Region. TechNet is the national bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy. We share the goal of protecting consumers from exploitative pricing practices, but House Bill 1210 is not the right approach I was provided a strike blow prior to this hearing and I want to thank representatives Mabry and Bacon for sharing that and engaging with TechNet in the stakeholding process However even with those changes TechNet must respectfully testify in opposition to House Bill 1210 The strike blow does not resolve all the problems with the bill, and in one respect actually makes it worse. The amended definition of consumer uses person rather than individual in inadvertently scoping in B2B transactions. The bill should instead use the Consumer Protection Act definition, which clearly excludes commercial entities. The exemption framework also remains too narrow. Loyalty programs, retention offers, winbacks, and subscription pricing would remain unprotected. New York's surveillance law addressed this with explicit carve-outs for existing subscriber pricing and prior relationship offers. Without similar language, Colorado risks becoming the only state in the nation that prohibits the modern pricing discounts and promotions that consumers rely on. A more targeted approach would be to apply the bill's restrictions to price increases only, rather than to all individualized pricing. That narrower scope would directly address the exploitative conduct the bill targets while preserving the consumer beneficial practices that Colorado's benefit from now.

Representative Brooks. Sure, thank you. May I dialogue briefly with Mr. White?

I spent my first lifetime in marketing, mass media, radio, television, newspaper. And along the line, targeting and being able to drive specific messages to specific people became more available to us. And as a result, we were able to deliver marketing messages, advertisements, incentives to buy, whatever it is, services, to people more specifically. specifically and what we found is that our our rates of um uh i guess engagement increased dramatically because we're able to deliver messaging to people that it was relevant so your comments kind of made me think about about that because my my last stop uh in in mass media we were using some really crazy uh honestly advanced techniques to where as a consumer, I felt like, ooh, this kind of freaks me out a little bit. But then as a marketer, I realized the data is anonymized. I don't know anything about anybody. But I do know this, that as a consumer, I'm past the diaper stage, thank God, in my life. I don't buy diapers for kids anymore. And so if you're going to serve me a diaper ad, that's absolutely a waste. It's a waste of my time, and that's spam. I don't want to see it. However, if you want to deliver something like a pellet grill, right, because I spend a lot of time searching online about hardwood pellets and different things so I can ruin perfectly good cuts of meat on my deck and deliver them into nothing more than meat for chili because I don't know how to actually cook. isn't that just isn't that better for everybody in the end because you're not getting any information about me other than this dude behind this shadow you know ip address kind of likes to to look at some it some you know smoking options so what i getting as it anonymized There nothing really all that shadowy and scary about it to begin with anyway And aren't we all just really at that point delivering better messaging that people are going to find more relevant and not as intrusive?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Representative Brooks. I'll leave the more technical IP-related questions to those that have greater subject matter expertise in terms of that visibility, that comment was based on kind of an economics, a basic economics argument, which is competition historically drives down prices. And what we have today is an outsized capacity for outreach to consumers for businesses. And what that means is that a greater capacity for individual businesses to compete for any given consumer's business. And so with that, as we continue to see more and more data and more and more accessibility through smartphones, through targeted advertising, et cetera, what you have for any given consumer is a greater competition for their business between a variety of businesses. It's not just, if you go back 40 years, it's not just the most geographically co-located corner store, grocery store, retail store, et cetera, where there's not as much competition between vendors and between online businesses and businesses across not just the country but the world for an individual consumer's business. And so because of that and because of that targeted data and those targeted marketing practices, for the consumer, you see more competition for their business, and that drives down their prices because the businesses are competing for their dollar. And this effectively shuts that down and shuts down what I was just talking about. It prevents that data from being shared at a point to where we're making things more relatable for everybody. So it eliminates that ability. It certainly hinders it. And again, once again, the technical pieces of the actual visibility for any given IP or any PII or person, I'm going to defer those arguments to any of my counterparts or peers up here that have a little bit more of that technical expertise. C3's position is coming from an economic argument. Yeah, I get it.

Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate you both. Further questions for this panel? Seeing none, we thank you for your time. Thank you. We're going to continue on with a panel of folks in support. I have, let's see, Lorenzo Harris in person. Kelly Reeves in person Christopher Bonham in person looks like Lee Heppner is online as well as Mike Calicrate Donnie Clemens is also online and looks like we have one more seat Isaac Chinyaka are you here? Wonderful let's continue with this panel we'll start here please state your name for the record who you represent you have the floor for two minutes thank you chair good afternoon chair basenacker

We respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you for your testimony. Please hold for questions. Next, if you could state your name, please, for the record. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on HB 1210. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next, please state your name for the record, who you represent, if anybody, and the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

For pretty much all these reasons, I'd encourage a yes vote on House Bill 1210. I encourage you to help us make it right out here so we're not getting exploited or taken advantage of. Thank you for your testimony. Please hold for questions. Next, please state your name for the record if you represent anybody, and you have two minutes.

So that's why I'm in support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Let's move on line. We've got Mike Calicrate. Mr. Calicrate, if you could unmute yourself, state your name for the record, who you represent.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. We'll go next to Mr. Paul Galloway. Mr. Galloway, before you start, Ms. Schroeder, we have tried to promote you, but you're not accepting the promotion. So if you can hear us, please do so.

Consider, for example, companies charging. Thank you for your testimony. If you could please conclude.

Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate you. Ms. Schroeder, we're going to go online to you. Glad to see you. Please introduce yourself. The floor is yours for two minutes.

We welcome participation from the public, no matter how old they are, Ms. Schroeder.

EPIC strongly urges the committee to advance House Bill 1210. Thank you very much, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Schrader. Committee, we have four people in person, a few folks online. Questions for this panel of witnesses? Seeing none, we thank you for your time. Thank you for joining us today. Okay, we'll continue on here with our next panel. This will be a mix of in-person and online, and then we'll fill up our in-person folks accordingly. Linda Hutchinson, who I believe might be online. Becky Davis, if you're here in person. Brian Lesane. Brian Lesane. And Carl Lapham. Great. It looks like we have a little more room in person here. Let's see who else. There's a gal that needs a Spanish translation. Is there anybody who needs translation for their testimony? If so, we have two spots available that we could bring up now. Okay, we'll hold on to that. Let's see. Kareem Sawadogo. Kareem, are you here? Wonderful. Come on up. And let's see here. Ahmed Alumrani. And you'll forgive my pronunciation, but you'll correct me on the mic.

That's good. Wonderful. And let's see. I think we can pull up a couple more folks online here. Brendan Markham. Let's pull up Mr. Markham. Let's see. Mohamed Rafi Nabizada. Not online? Okay.

You are here. Okay, great. Let's see. We also have Mr. Kerry Holiday online. We can get you pulled up and we'll have your testimony in just a second. And let's also pull up Darlene Rivera, if possible. Not there? Okay. We're going to keep going down the list here. Mr. Rupak Mishra? No? Okay. How about Brian Lesane? No? Boy, I'm striking out here. How about Linda Hutchinson? No? Okay. Why don't we roll with this panel? We'll call up some people next. We'll start here on my right, your left. Do you have two minutes? Please state your name for the record. The floor is yours.

Thank you for your testimony. Before we go to the next person, can we call up Lee Heppner online, and we'll get to Lee in just a moment. Please state your name for the record, who you represent. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please hold for questions. Next, if you could state your name for the record, who you represent, the floor is yours for two minutes.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, please state your name for the record, who you represent. The floor is yours for two minutes.

they are human beings. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please hold for questions. Let's go online. Lee Heppner, if you could state your name for the record, who you represent. The floor is yours for two minutes.

for taking it up and listening to all the testimony today. Thank you for your testimony. Please hold for questions. Let's go next to Brendan Markham. Mr. Markham, the floor is yours for two minutes. Please state your name, who you represent. Mr. Markham, we just can't hear you quite yet. If you could unmute. Can you hear me now? We got you now. There you are. Okay. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Markham. If you could wrap up your testimony.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Linda Hutchinson, if you could unmute yourself, you have the floor for two minutes.

Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. Carrie Holliday, the floor is yours for two minutes. If you could state your name for the record.

And thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Committee, we have a few folks online for in person. Madam Vice Chair.

Mr. Heppner, the floor is yours. Thank you so much through the chair. Thank you so for the question. This has no impact on your coffee punch card. This has no impact on a buy 10 sandwiches, get one free loyalty program. The bill, and we've discussed this extensively about this particular bill language, the bill does not prohibit any discount or loyalty program term that is offered consistently to all consumers and applied equitably to all eligible consumers. And we should drill down on what a bona fide discount is. A bona fide discount allows the consumer to have confidence that they are actually enjoying a benefit And for that confidence to exist you do need something like a fixed public price that the discount can be compared against And that public price that normal regular price actually needs to be a price that is paid for by consumers in the market. It cannot be a fictitiously high price to form the basis for a discount that is a discount in name only, but actually is the normal price. Consumers, we are trying with this bill and in other bills like it to restore consumer confidence that when a discount is being offered or that when they sign up for a loyalty program to get a reward, that those discounts are actually real and that those rewards are actually real and are not vectors for discrimination between consumers contradictory to what the rest of this bill is trying to accomplish.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Brian Winkler. I'm the Executive Vice President for Communication Workers of America, Local 7777. And I'm here to speak in support of House Bill 1210. At its core, this bill addresses a growing problem in today's economy, surveillance being used to quietly push workers' pay down and consumer prices up. Many workers, but especially our members who are ride-share drivers, are not paid based solely on the work they do. Instead companies collect enormous amounts of behavioral data and use algorithms to predict what each worker will tolerate and pay. Companies like Uber and Lyft can track acceptance rates, response times, driving patterns, and how often someone works. That data can then be used to determine who is most likely to accept lower pay. In other words, the system can identify drivers who are financially dependent on the platform and offer them worse rates because the algorithm predicts they will still take the trip. For example, Uber analyzes how many times a driver direct deposits from the app, which is an indicator of financial instability, and they will provide them with more lower-paying rides, which the company knows they will take because of their desperation. In a large-scale fairness analysis of Chicago-area ride-hailing samples, made in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data, metrics from tens of millions of rides indicate ethnicity, age, housing prices, and education influence the dynamic fair pricing models used by ride-share apps. In other words these algorithms are dialing the equality clock back decades ensuring that racist sexist and discriminatory practices by employers are solidified House Bill 1210 takes an important step to correct that It would prohibit individualized wage and consumer price setting based on surveillance data and create more transparency around how automated pay systems work. Workers deserve to know what data is being used to determine their pay and how these decisions are being made. As algorithmic management expands across industries, Colorado has an opportunity to lead by setting clear rules that protect workers and promote transparency. Consumers won't need corporations, discounts, and coupons after algorithmic surveillance will be barred from price gouging the most desperate amongst us. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for support for House Bill 1210.

The floor is yours for two minutes. Hi, my name is Dirk Collins, and I represent the independent rideshare drivers here in Colorado who work for many different rideshare companies. I support House Bill 26-12-10 and would urge you to go ahead and approve that. My background is I have five years with Uber this coming April. I've done over 12,000 rides from them in that time. I have a 4.94 star rating. yet as we go along and we're driving the last two years and just like the last week my acceptance rating is 12% of all the rides that are offered to me. 88% of the rides that have been offered to me in the last month, 88% of them would not even pay minimum wage here in Colorado. Why am I even receiving these offers from Uber? Why is it even legal for them to offer me that? These are my questions for you today as you're considering this bill. They're using the data that they're collecting for me to offer rides after I've done five years of good and loyal service to them. They're completely disrespectful about that. Representative Morrow asked, how do we know what the AI is doing? The AI has cut my pay by almost 50% over the last 18 months. That's what it's actually doing. Okay. Representative Marshall asked about offering lower prices. Uber is certainly offering lower prices to their drive, to the people who are in the state of Colorado who need rides. But they are not taking the profit hit on those. They are passing it directly on to the drivers and offering them less pay. I don't think that's fair at all. I haven't seen this with airline tickets either. I went to book a flight with any airline to the Virgin Islands last spring on spring break, and the first thing that I noticed when I went online is I received offers, and they were fairly good for the flights I offered. But the second and third round, none of them were discounted. They were all more and more. Why is this happening? Okay, thank you. Please support HB 261210.

Hi, my name is Stephen Lustig, and I'm with Colorado Independent Drivers United, and I'm a driver myself. As a rideshare driver, AI is taking over every aspect of our work, and personally, as a consumer, AI is also taking over every aspect of my life. First of all, we have Waymos and other robo-taxis want to automate us out of work. Uber and Lyft can also use algorithms to give us certain pay for certain rides and they could discriminate against us any one of us could get some based on our personal data or the rides we accept, decline, our what we have in our savings account and things like that. And in terms of micro-targeting, micro-marketing, all these things are so invasive and dystopian. The argument, those in opposition to this bill, pretty much amounts to, but what about our marketing department's right to bombard your phone with more spam calls and your inbox with more emails? I think your marketing department will be fine, business community. It was brought up to me too about grocery store coupons and how they couldn't micro-target to their loyal customers. They could still do that. This wouldn't stop anything that's currently happening. I also want to bring up to the conservatives on the board here, think about the ways in which the government can misuse this technology. Do you really want state agencies controlled by Polis or Bennett or somebody else? Do you want them to be able to discriminate against people? Think about the wider ramifications. So please support this bill so that we can take back our lives from artificial intelligence, both as consumers, as workers, and as human beings. Thank you for your time.

Hi. I am reading testimony for somebody. My name is Kate Wells, and I'm a researcher at the AI Now Institute, a think tank based in New York City. For a decade, I have investigated the working conditions of the largest gig companies in the U.S. I have written a book about Uber as well as reports about DoorDash. Today, I offer support for Colorado's bill to limit the harms of algorithmic wages and prices and interviews with hundreds of Instacart shoppers, elderly care workers, app-based nurses, and Uber drivers. I have seen firsthand the costs of algorithmic wages. I will share with you one story. Aisha is a nurse in Georgia who works full-time at a long-term care facility. For years, she has supplemented her income with work for DoorDash or Uber Eats. Two years ago, she signed up for work at ShiftKey, a gig nursing company at nearby nursing homes. To win a shift, Aisha bids against peers to see who will work for the lowest amount. It's a race to the bottom. She doesn't know why she has paid less than her peers for certain shifts. She doesn't know what data the company collects about her and how they use it to set her wages. Aisha was surprised by the amount of isolation. She put it this way in an interview with me. Quote, I feel just like I'm on an island by myself. Sometimes there is no orientation. She doesn't know where the supply closets are or how to log into patient portals to figure out which medications a patient is taking. There are no interviews as part of the job application. The hiring process has been relegated to algorithmic software systems that screen and evaluate applicants. Local, oh, so for shift key, this has shown up late at night to facilities where doors are locked and she can't get in contact with anyone at the facility to open them. Even inside certain hospitals, she sometimes feels unsafe. Local regulators like you play a critical role in this moment, and we urge your support.

Thank you, Ms. Forsett. Mr. Farber, if we see you online, if you could unmute yourself.

Thank you for your testimony. Committee, we've got a few folks in person here. Mr. Farber, online. Questions for this panel of witnesses? Madam Vice Chair. Thank you. This is for any one of our drivers. We heard in testimony yesterday the linkage of your driver profile to your credit. But can one of you describe how that works and how that determines the rides you're offered? We'd like to speak to that. We know that. If you could just state your name. Oh, yeah.

Oh, I can address that real quick. Before you speak, if you could just say your name for the record.

Thank you. Representative Marshall.

I mean, it would still be discriminatory, and so they can choose for the same ride, say, from the airport to Union Station. They can give two different drivers completely different amounts based on much of their personal information. It can be their acceptance rate, cancellation rate, but also maybe they can look into even more personnel. We're not even sure how deep it can go, but we don't want to find out later the wrong way. It just becomes so invasive with the gig work, and it's so hyper-personalized. But it also, because we don't know how far it goes, we don't know how much they can discriminate against us. and our whole livelihoods are based on that. If you're taking worse rides, the more desperate you are, the more they're going to keep on doing that to you. We think that for the same distance, the same ride, should be paid the same amount. It shouldn't matter how desperate you are or anything. It's the same work. So it should be same pay.

Matthew Logan, Senior Policy Manager, New Era Colorado, a champion in advancing economic justice for young people in our most vulnerable communities. It is because of this work that we stand in strong support of this bill to give power back to the consumers to protect Coloradans from predatory practices brandished by corporations. As we confront a paralyzing cost of living and affordability crisis, not just here at home but across the nation, our leaders must be bold and enact any solution to protect the people that they serve. HB 1210 is a comprehensive policy that would establish strong enforcement mechanisms targeting deceptive trade practices and prohibit individualized price and wage setting relying on predatory surveillance data. These surveillance practices have an impact on young people who were born into financial instability while struggling to build financial security for their futures. Younger generations are the backbone of the e-commerce market, practically living their lives online as the bill sponsors alluded to earlier. Companies take advantage of this tracking our every move and using our data to set prices not based upon their actual worth, but how they might behave as a consumer. Those opposed to this measure may argue these practices are no different than setting prices based on demand. But demand means setting a price based on market value, which is not what is happening. Corporations are using our private data and AI to set different prices for the same products, and they want lower wages and higher profits. This leaves our communities paying more and earning less they are gaming the system and this bill is how we hold them accountable Rent has skyrocketed and the dream of owning a home has become a fantasy. Grocery prices are too high, and markets are unstable. This bill creates the absolutely necessary safeguards for consumers and their privacy and strengthens transparency and accountability, ultimately providing the relief to Coloradans that is desperately needed. If our political winds and regional and national trends are screaming anything toward our elected officials, it's that we need our leaders to stand up for our consumers and our workers. I've been incredibly inspired by the testimony I've seen from people who experience this day in and day out today. And on behalf of all those, I urge the committee to vote yes on this bill to protect our consumers.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Ellen Buckley, and I'm the chair of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, which I'm representing today in support of 1210. The Women's Lobby advocates here for gender equity and policies that positively impact women and families. Every year we pick one bill as our priority bill, and this year we chose 1210 because prohibiting surveillance price and wage setting will improve the lives of so many women. SPW affects everyone, but it affects women more. As we all know, women are paid less than men, and women of color are paid even less than white women, so they are particularly harmed by discriminatory wage setting. Women are a large percentage of gig drivers. And given child care unaffordability and safety concerns, many women opt for the lower-paying food delivery gigs rather than driving passengers so that they can bring their children to ride along with them. And for women already trying to earn rent or be able to pay for a car so they can take their kids to school, individually targeting them so they are given worse delivery jobs is unacceptable. Transparency in wage setting is incredibly important so that when applying for a job or agreeing to work for a delivery company, workers are aware of the use of these potentially discriminatory algorithms in order to know to request the basis for their wage and be able to correct misinformation. Because women are paid less when we're individually targeted with increased prices based on an algorithm, it harms us disproportionately. Consumers deserve transparency. Let's be clear, this bill governs lower wages and increased prices. It does not govern lowering prices. Let's be clear, this is an important bill, and it's fundamentally unfair for surveillance price and wage setting to exist. It harms us all, and we urge you to vote yes on 1210.

Thank you, Chairman Basenecker, and good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Ridge Rath. I'm here today representing the Colorado Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association, or PILA, as you might know us. I'm here today to testify in support of House Bill 1210. And as you've heard from the bill's sponsors and others who have testified before me today, this bill is essential to protect all of us from being price gouged by the corporations we rely on every day as consumers for everything from groceries to health care. But this bill also puts in place essential protection actions for Colorado workers who are already being harmed by discriminatory wage setting practices. As someone who represents vulnerable employees for a living, I believe this bill is necessary in order to prevent employers from exploiting employees' socioeconomic situations in ways that have previously not been possible. Exploitative wage setting has existed for years in the gig economy, as you've heard from many Uber drivers here tonight. And with between these rideshare companies and contract healthcare companies using information about a worker's economic situation, they create desperation scores, which then allow them to offer more desperate workers lower compensation to perform the same work that they offer other workers who they deem less desperate. Anecdotally, I can share that these troubling wage setting practices have bled over into wage setting for other industries outside of those too. Some common examples I frequently see are companies using information about how recently a worker has applied for a payday loan or whether a worker has applied for unemployment benefits in the last year as metrics used to offer these employees lower wages than their co-workers because they perceive them to be desperate for work, even though they know they're going to perform the exact same jobs as their co-workers who are not in as dire of economic situations. These types of wage-sitting algorithms can only further exacerbate the wage gaps for women, disabled workers, and other protected groups who have historically earned less than their counterparts. While AI can be a helpful tool in many situations, it can also be dangerous and harmful, and House Bill 1210 is necessary to ensure that we are not letting AI grow faster than we can regulate. I would urge you to vote yes on

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L1.

Would you like to tell us about your amendment?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try not to belabor the point because as we know, the strike below is the bill now. And it's a comprehensive rewrite that responds directly to feedback that we received from stakeholders. We went line by line through a 14-page document and responded the best we could to the feedback we got in some parts directly taking language. So I want to highlight a few key things. One of the key things that this does is it strips the private right of action and then makes clear that this is just enforceable under existing Consumer Protection Act law. So we heard testimony today about travel damages, et cetera. Those parts of the bill were stripped out in our stakeholder meetings. That was typically the first thing that people brought up. We also heard conversations about the definition. We heard some testimony about the definition. So the introduced version of the bill had a broad definition for automated decision system. Stakeholders pointed out that that might include things that we not intentionally trying to include include and so we narrowed the term to be a price or wage setting algorithm meaning that it must analyze surveillance data for the purpose of setting a price Those two things have to work in tandem. So today there was some testimony about spreadsheets. Maybe a spreadsheet qualifies, but only if what the spreadsheet is doing is downloading the surveillance data and then spitting out a price that is then the set price. So we also did more narrowing throughout in a similar way. Operative verb inform was changed to determine. We heard a lot of feedback about how the behaviors definition could mean that somebody's activity not online could be analyzed. So we changed that definition to online. We removed vague terms like vulnerabilities, overbroad references to IP addresses. And then the Consumer Protection Act definition of consumer was explicitly put into the stakeholder or put into this strike below. We heard about that in testimony. Somebody said they were worried the original version of the bill included business-to-business transactions. We heard that feedback and put the exact definition that they requested into the strike below. We also made major changes around protecting discounts, loyalty programs, and legitimate pricing. Specifically, we worked with stakeholders, including Ibotta, who told us that the original loyalty program exemption needed to better reflect the realities. So particularly around tiered rewards, third-party benefit providers, we took that feedback seriously and restructured the safe harbor around loyalty programs. So now the test is straightforward. A discounted price offered on equal terms pursuant to publicly disclosed terms and conditions to all members or participants in a loyalty program are covered and exempted. We added new safe harbor for customer service. This was in direct response to TechNet and Verizon. Specifically, they were like, well, what if somebody is reaching out to complain about a service outage, or what if they're going to cancel their service because they didn't like our customer service? Is that covered? We did not believe that was covered, but they offered us language to include in the bill. we included carve outs for insurance companies who might be monitoring things like safe driving and again the enforcement provision and we will take any questions committee any questions on this

I'm trying not to use bad language here, but it's creepy AF. I'm sorry, but the fact that I could click on something online and then go into a store, and they're going to charge me more because I looked at it is sketchy. Now I know this language sounds like it came from your fair Jennifer Bacon But it did not It came from the New Jersey governor Mikey Sherrill And I think what really important about this is that the terms that we are talking about today surveillance pricing, is not something that we just generated by ourselves. The issue now is becoming pervasive. We have seen legislatures from California to Minnesota, now the governor of New Jersey. People are talking about this because what we do know in our ethos and our culture, people are becoming more and more aware that there is a bunch of data out there about them. And now they are aware that it is being used against them. The truth of the matter is we do have an opportunity to make determinations about this. Even though we heard from bigger businesses and small businesses, at the end of the day, every single one of us in this room and among our constituencies are consumers. And so I think why we are bringing this bill is because we know this type of business, these concerns, these issues around data, they're only moving in one direction. We will not see in the next couple of years, God bless us all, but some sort of major rollback of the use of our cell phones. We will not see major rollbacks of data that we are generating nor that we are using. and so sometimes I just say that it's the year 2026 just to kind of shock myself into reality for many in my generation we've kind of been preparing for the day whether it's Skynet or flying cars but the truth of the matter is if we all sit and imagine what is the world going to look like in 10, 20 years we will be mired in our technology and we will be generating data And so again, the term surveillance pricing is something that is now being put on the tips of many people's tongues. And it is just what it sounds like. The same when it goes with surveillance wages. We also know what's true about business has been true about business, especially in our capitalistic function, since the dawn of its inception and its writings, whether it's John Locke or whatnot. At the end of the day, it comes down to this, and this is after having paid a hefty amount for a business degree. At the end of the day, the purpose of business is to maximize profits. And you can generally do that by either reducing expenses or increasing revenues and maybe restructuring some debt. But at the end of the day, this is the thing that we also know to be true. If a business puts out a program, whether it's a sale or a loyalty program, at the end of the day, it's trying to draw you in to increase its revenues. Their board members have fiduciary duties to that outcome. And so if you spend time on your phones, look up the truth about how loyalty programs don't actually save you money. But even with that we still listen to the stakeholders and we said we will have a starting place And rather than addressing that we are going to simply name what surveillance is that it is I don even want to say the word because I think our governor said it but the practice of looking into all of our information outside of what's given to determine a vulnerability so they can make the most money, aka increase revenues, or pay us the least, aka reduce expenses. And so members, what we are asking on behalf of all of those who came today, and yes, in concert with business, is to understand that all of us have a role to play in not only creating sustainable markets, but also in creating what is affordable for us. And when I want to go buy a home and I hear that the people who build it have access to all this data on me, I think about what I have and what power I have in that negotiating space. When I think about any other thing about how can I buy food or the milk or the diapers that I need, what kind of negotiating power do I have as compared to the tools that are designed to find everything about me to analyze it for this outcome? This is the question that matters to all of us. I want to say also thank you to our rancher from Ranch Food Direct. Because I hope you can hear about the decisions businesses have to make. And as much as we want to talk about what's impact business over time, at the end of the day, we have gone to Main Street, to big box stores, to now online. And while to some extent we can talk about supply and demand, we have to be honest, given what he shared with us, that is not what we're talking about anymore. And so when we think about what our businesses and consumers are up against and the impact that has, again, it is our role and our opportunity to not just catch up but be present and stake a claim in regards to how it is that we want to afford our lives, be a part of the marketplace, and sustain our dreams, which might even include maintaining a small business. And so with that, members, I want to thank all of us for the discussion, even from the opposition, because there is no policy decision that can be made to this sort of magnitude where we don't understand the landscape. But at the end of the day, the question is, what are we playing against when we go into a store or try to get paid? Is it the market factors around supply and demand, or is it that supercomputer? And what is it going to be 10, 20, 30 years from now? And will we be government 10, 20, 30 years behind? And so now I pass it over to my co-prime. Thank you so much for your consideration today. I do hope we take these steps in support of us all and shape the future that we want to see.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I first want to thank the people who came out to testify for the bill. I know there were people who waited around hours to get their two minutes in. We care about what you have to say and how you're being impacted in our state. So thank you for coming out. In a fair market, prices should move based on supply and demand. They should rise and fall equally for everybody. Surveillance pricing does something fundamentally different. It just prices based on you, who you are, what you're going through, how desperate you might be. That is not the free market. That is exploitation dressed up with technology, and that is what this bill is trying to prevent. I do want to be clear that we do not think that this strike below is the Magna Carta. We're still willing to refine definition in this bill to make it as targeted as possible. But the changes that we've made in this were made in response to stakeholder feedback. We adopted many changes verbatim. We matched it to the Consumer Protection Act. And we made sure that enforcement was through the Consumer Protection Act. I already walked through a lot of the changes, so I'm not going to belabor the point. But what I will say, and I told people who came to testify in opposition from the Chamber of Commerce in the hallway after they testified, we want to keep working with them on this. Provide us new feedback on the new definitions that we put in in response to your original feedback. If we can maintain the heart and soul of the policy while addressing your concerns, we're going to do that. The definitions in this bill work as a chain. Surveillance data fed into a price and wage setting algorithm has to be the deciding factor, and then the price has to be individualized. So I know we've had a lot of talk about the definitions, but if you pull any one factor out of that chain, there is an exemption. I also want to push back on the claim that this overlaps with other AI laws. I guess it does in one sense, just the sense that we as the state of Colorado and as lawmakers are trying to keep up with the rapidly changing pace of our economy due to the rapid development of technology. But our existing AI law does not address unfair or deceptive pricing. This bill fills a specific consumer protection gap that has arisen because our laws are not keeping pace with changes in technology. And I don't want to lose sight of the wage side of this bill. We heard about ride share drivers in the same room searching for the same ride at the same time with them getting different prices for the exact same work. That's not a pay structure. That's a pay lottery. and as algorithmic management spreads across industries, more workers are going to have to have their pay set by systems that they cannot see or challenge. This bill says if a machine is deciding your paycheck, you have a right to know what data it's using, the right to correct it if it's wrong, and your employer cannot use your surveillance data to find the lowest wage you'll accept. That's basic worker dignity. We also heard testimony today that this technology is used to offer discounts. Well, I ask every member of this committee to consider what that word means. A discount is a reduction from a set price. If the price itself is being set by an algorithm analyzing each individual consumer on an individual basis There is no set price There no baseline And if there is no baseline, the word discount is meaningless. What's described as discount could just as easily be everyone else paying a little bit less than you or a little bit more than you. We are not prohibiting discounts. We are prohibiting the use of surveillance data to manipulate prices in a way that makes it impossible for consumers to tell the difference between a deal and a scam. I also want to address a concrete example that we heard during testimony. We heard of a witness who was shopping online for admission tickets to a race. They put the ticket in their cart, decided the price was too much, and they left the website. They then the next day got an email saying, hey, you left something behind. Here's 15% off on this race. The cart abandonment discount is completely allowed under this bill. If the company sends that same 15% discount offer to every consumer that leaves their cart, then that is cut out. That is not surveillance pricing. that is a discount offered on equal terms. And that language is specifically in the strike below. And if we need to refine that a little bit, I'm happy to do so. But that's what a real discount is. A real discount is offered on equal terms, a reduction from a known price available to anyone who meets the same criteria. What this bill prohibits is the company analyzing your browser history, your income, how many times you visit a page, what other races you've attended, calculating that you specifically need 15% lower than your neighbor, or your neighbor is willing to pay 45% more than you. When our market is like that, it's not free and fair. That's gamification of the market. Finally, I just got to address that this is a competition issue. Surveillance pricing gives the supply side insider information about buyers while consumers and competitors are left in the dark. Small businesses cannot build these systems. They cannot compete with the largest corporations that know everything about every consumer. The algorithm doesn't just set the price. It decides the entire playing field. This bill comes down to a simple question. Should corporations be allowed to use everything they know about your personal life to charge you the most, you'll bear, or pay you the least you'll take? We say no and we ask for a yes vote. Thank you, bill sponsors.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 26-12-10 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Moved by Representative Mabry, seconded by Madam Vice Chair. Committee closing comments with a note that judiciary meets across the hall. Representative Richardson.

Further comments? Representative Leder.

Thank you. Representative Raiden.

Representative Brooks.

Madam Vice Chair.

I'll just add a few remarks, mostly to thank you both for your diligent stakeholder work. It's not lost on me that when you have folks who show up in committee who are opposed to your bill, but they're thanking you for the work that you've done, it means that you're working hard on the issue. And I think that is both commendable and everything that I've experienced from you both as colleagues in your time here. And so I'm happy to support your bill today because I think you're just going to continue that work. I have no doubt that those conversations will continue. Really appreciate the strike below amendment and the work that's been done to date, but look forward to seeing where the bill goes next.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Mabry.

Marshall.

Morrow.

Richardson.

Ryden.

Sukla.

Weinberg.

Froelich. Oh, that's me. I think so.

And Mr. Chair.

That bill passes on a vote of 7 to 6. Thank you, committee.

Our work is done here today.