Full Breakdown
Colorado Governor Vetoes Landmark Surveillance-Pricing Ban
6/4/2026, 5:32:01 AM
Legislative Background and Scope of HB 26-1210
House Bill 26-1210, introduced by state Rep. Javier Mabrey and Sen. Jennifer Bacon, sought to prohibit companies from using personal data, statistical modeling, AI or other data-processing techniques to set individualized prices for goods (e.g., groceries, electronics) and wages for gig-workers such as Uber and Lyft drivers. The bill would have treated such practices as deceptive trade practices under Colorado consumer-protection law, while preserving “transparent” loyalty-program discounts and student or senior markdowns. After passing the Senate 19-15 and receiving House amendments, the measure cleared the Legislature in May 2026.
Key Stakeholders
- Governor Jared Polis – Democratic governor who issued the veto.
- Legislators – Rep. Javier Mabrey, Sen. Jennifer Bacon (bill sponsors).
- Consumer-advocacy groups – American Economic Liberties Project (Pat Garofalo), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
- Technology-policy groups – Center for Democracy & Technology (George Slover).
- Industry representatives – Travel Technology Association, Paul Singer (partner, Kelley Drye & Warren, former Texas AG consumer-protection attorney).
- Federal agencies – Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which released a study on algorithmic pricing; FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson later called the study a “rush job.”
- Other states – Maryland (first grocery-store ban), New York (price-disclosure law), plus pending bills in Illinois, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut.
Official Statements & Rationale
Governor Polis wrote that the bill’s “broader framework will inadvertently capture innocuous uses of technology that in no way harms — and indeed benefits — consumers and workers,” and warned it would “punish differentially lower prices, not just higher prices.” He framed the veto as a protection of market freedom. Consumer-advocates described the veto as a missed chance to shield “working Coloradans” from data-driven price gouging. Industry groups argued the measure would “disrupt competitive markets” and expose platforms to “unnecessary litigation.”
Criticism & Opposition
Advocates contend surveillance pricing lets firms charge the maximum a person will pay and offer the minimum wage a worker will accept, disproportionately harming low-income consumers and gig workers. Pat Garofalo of the American Economic Liberties Project said the governor “chose to side with the dominant corporations using invasive surveillance data to pick their pockets.” Rep. Mabrey emphasized the bill’s role in curbing “price gouge” and pledged to refile. George Slover praised the bill’s “carefully crafted exceptions” and called it a necessary safeguard for vulnerable groups. Conversely, the Travel Technology Association warned the bill would “prohibit pricing practices that are transparent, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers” while creating litigation exposure. Paul Singer argued that “restrictions on algorithms… actually hurts consumers” by limiting legitimate discount mechanisms.
Data & Statistics
- 68 % of Americans worry surveillance pricing will raise costs (GBAO Strategies/United Food and Commercial Workers).
- Only 5 % believe it lowers prices.
- A Biden-administration study linked algorithmic rent-setting to an average $1,600 annual increase for Denver renters.
- Sixteen bipartisan state attorneys general sent a joint letter to the FTC urging action on “unfair and deceptive pricing practices,” including online food-delivery fees.
- Maryland’s grocery-store ban, enacted in April, contains “industry carve-outs” that critics deem insufficient.
Why It Matters
The veto leaves Colorado without a statewide check on AI-driven price and wage discrimination, preserving the status quo for retailers, platforms, insurers and employers that already employ such algorithms. The decision also signals the challenges of crafting narrowly targeted AI regulation at the state level, especially when federal guidance remains limited and the FTC’s own study is contested.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Pro-consumer groups argue surveillance pricing inflates costs for vulnerable populations, while industry representatives claim that prohibitions would curtail beneficial discounts and price accuracy. The FTC has not issued enforcement guidance, and its chair’s dismissal of the prior study leaves a regulatory vacuum.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Governor Polis had an opportunity to stand with working Coloradans, but instead chose to side with the dominant corporations using invasive surveillance data to pick their pockets,” — Pat Garofalo, Director of State and Local Policy, American Economic Liberties Project
- “This is a good bill that addresses abusive and discriminatory setting of prices and wages, a problem that threatens to become widespread in the marketplace and cause significant harm to vulnerable consumers and workers,” — George Slover, Senior Counsel for Competition Policy, Center for Democracy & Technology
- “Paul Singer, who worked in consumer protection at the Texas Attorney General’s office under Ken Paxton for over 20 years and is now a partner in private practice at Kelley Drye & Warren, told Gizmodo it actually hurts consumers if you put restrictions on algorithms.” — Paul Singer, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren (former Texas AG consumer-protection attorney)
- “Everybody is talking about how concerned they are with the rising cost of living, and this bill was about preventing companies from spying on us to price gouge us,” — Rep. Javier Mabrey (D-1), sponsor of HB 1210
- “this broader framework will inadvertently capture innocuous uses of technology that in no way harms -- and indeed benefits -- consumers and workers.” — Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado (veto letter)
What’s Next
Mabrey and Bacon have pledged to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session. Meanwhile, New York’s price-disclosure bill awaits Assembly approval, and a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general continues to press the FTC for federal action. The ongoing debate underscores a broader national push to define the limits of AI-driven pricing before additional state measures are enacted.
