Prohibit Surveillance Price & Wage Setting

Plain English: This amendment creates a new law in Colorado that bans businesses from using surveillance data and algorithms to set different prices for consumers or wages for workers based on their personal information.

• It defines 'surveillance data' as any information gathered by watching, inferring, or tracking people's online behavior, habits, biometrics, or personal traits.
• It prohibits companies from using algorithms that analyze this surveillance data to decide what price a specific consumer pays for goods or services.
• It also stops employers from using these same tools to determine how much wage or pay offer they give to individual workers.
• The law allows different prices only if the difference is due to actual costs, time of purchase, public discounts available to everyone who meets clear rules, or loyalty program rewards.

• The provided text cuts off in the middle of a sentence describing 'loyalty' programs, so the full list of exceptions for membership rewards is incomplete.
• Because the definition section was truncated, it is unclear if there are other specific terms or rules defined later in the bill that were not included.

Plain English: This amendment clarifies the definition of online behaviors, specifies that price discrimination involves offering lower prices than previously given to a consumer, and updates rules about credit refusals and subscription agreements.

• It defines 'online behaviors' as actions or interests observed through digital surveillance, including how an individual compares to other groups.
• It clarifies that unfair pricing happens when a seller offers a discount below the price previously offered to that same consumer.
• It adds exceptions for situations where people have ongoing subscription agreements not influenced by wage-setting algorithms.
• It updates rules regarding credit refusals and requires certain information be provided during financial transaction applications.

• The text refers to a 'Business Affairs and Labor Committee Report' from March 2026, which is in the future relative to current dates.
• Some specific legal terms like 'PWSA' are used without full explanation in this amendment snippet.

Plain English: This amendment adds a new definition for loyalty or rewards programs to clarify that they are legitimate if they offer real benefits, while removing other specific text from the bill.

• Adds a rule defining 'loyalty, membership, or rewards program' as any card system meant to give genuine benefits to people who choose to join it.
• Clarifies that these programs can be run directly by a business or through a third-party partner company.
• Removes the phrase 'FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:' and deletes several lines of text from page 4 of the bill.

• The amendment does not explain what specific rules apply to these programs, only how they are defined.
• Because some deleted text is missing from this document, it is unclear exactly which previous definitions or exceptions were removed.

Plain English: This amendment adds rules stating that using surveillance data is only illegal if it causes real financial harm or unfair treatment, and protects companies from penalties for accidental mistakes.

• A violation of the law now requires proof that someone knowingly used surveillance data to cause significant money loss or pay differences compared to similar people.
• The amendment defines 'material economic harm' as a non-trivial financial impact that results in different prices or wages for individuals in similar situations.
• Companies will not be found guilty if they accidentally use surveillance data, provided they have reasonable policies and procedures in place to follow the law.

• The amendment text does not explain exactly what counts as 'reasonable' policies or how much money loss is considered significant enough.
• This specific version of the bill was marked as lost, meaning it did not pass in this form.

Plain English: This amendment delays the law's start date to January 1, 2029, and requires state officials to create specific rules and guidance by early 2028.

• The new law will not take effect until January 1, 2029.
• State attorneys general must write official rules defining key terms like 'surveillance data' and 'individualized price setting' by January 1, 2028.
• Officials must create clear safety standards for companies using automated tools or algorithms to help them follow the law.
• By July 1, 2028, officials must publish public examples showing what actions are allowed and which ones break the rules.

• The amendment text does not explain exactly how 'surveillance data' or other terms will be defined in the final rules.
• This amendment was marked as 'Lost,' meaning it did not pass and these changes were likely not made to the bill.

Plain English: This amendment changes how surveillance data is defined by requiring that it be collected without voluntary consent and not needed for the transaction.

• It replaces the phrase 'data obtained through' with a longer definition focusing on monitoring, tracking, or inference about people.
• It adds rules stating the data must not have been voluntarily given by the person being watched.
• It adds rules stating the data collection is only considered surveillance if it is not necessary to finish a sale or provide a service.

• The amendment text does not explain what specific actions are banned, only how 'surveillance data' would be defined.
• This amendment was marked as lost and did not pass in the legislative process.

Plain English: This amendment changes the bill to require companies to keep internal rules about their algorithms instead of publishing them and adds a rule that they must share information with workers or customers if asked.

• Companies would have to maintain reasonable internal procedures for their algorithms instead of developing and publishing those procedures publicly.
• The list of required actions is updated by changing the word 'algorithm' to include an ending punctuation mark.

• The amendment text only shows changes to a committee report page, so it does not explain what specific information must be disclosed or how companies should handle requests.
• Because this is an edit to a summary document rather than the full law text, some details about enforcement and definitions are missing.

Plain English: This amendment would ban employers from using surveillance data that has nothing to do with a worker's job skills or performance when setting their pay, while listing specific allowed reasons for wage differences.

• It makes it illegal to use an automated system to set wages based on personal information gathered through observation if that info is not related to the person's actual work duties, qualifications, productivity, or experience.
• It adds a list of acceptable business factors that can be used to determine pay differences, such as seniority, merit, quality of production, credentials, location, and shift times.

• The amendment text does not define exactly what counts as 'surveillance data' or how employers must prove the data is unrelated to job duties.
• This specific version of the bill was marked as 'Lost,' meaning it did not pass in this form.

Plain English: This amendment would only ban using surveillance data to set prices if the data is unrelated to the product and used mainly to exploit a consumer's weakness or stop them from making smart choices.

• It creates a new rule that stops businesses from setting specific prices for consumers based on surveillance data when that data has nothing to do with the actual transaction, product, or service.

• The amendment does not ban price differences caused by normal business reasons like demand, inventory costs, purchase history, or loyalty programs.
• This proposal was marked as 'Lost' in the legislative process and did not become part of the final bill.

Plain English: This amendment expands the bill's rules to include ride-sharing services and clarifies that companies cannot use surveillance data for decisions about keeping workers or customers.

• Adds 'ride' sharing platforms alongside delivery services so they must follow the same new laws.
• Updates the list of reasons a company can be penalized to include using data just to keep consumers as customers.
• Clarifies that worker decisions based on seniority or their specific job tasks are allowed exceptions.

• The amendment text only shows short edits and does not explain the full rules for ride-sharing services outside of these lines.
• It is unclear exactly how 'data' in line 10 connects to other parts of the bill without reading the original law.

Plain English: This amendment adds a rule stating that using surveillance data is only illegal if it causes real financial harm or involves unfair tricks, and it protects companies from penalties for accidental mistakes.

• A person only breaks the law if they knowingly use surveillance data to cause significant money loss to consumers or workers.
• The amendment defines 'material economic harm' as a noticeable change in price or pay compared to what similar people would get, excluding very small amounts.
• Companies will not be punished for accidental or one-time uses of surveillance data if they have reasonable rules and procedures to follow the law.

• The exact legal meaning of 'reasonable policies' is not defined in this text, so it may depend on future court decisions.
• This amendment was marked as 'Lost,' which means these changes were rejected and did not become part of the final bill.

Plain English: This amendment changes the bill to require companies to keep internal records of their algorithms and share them with workers or consumers only if asked, instead of publishing them publicly.

• Companies must maintain reasonable internal documentation about how they use surveillance data for pricing or wages.

• The amendment text does not explain what specific details the companies must include in their records.
• It is unclear if there are any time limits on when a company must respond to requests from workers or consumers.

Plain English: This amendment would change the law to only ban price discrimination against consumers when that pricing is based on their race, gender, age, disability, or other protected personal traits.

• The bill currently bans using surveillance data for any consumer price setting.

• This amendment was voted down and did not become part of the final law.
• The text only changes how prices are set for consumers, so it does not explain if wage rules would also be limited in the same way.

Plain English: This amendment allows programs to give special discounts or offers based on a member's past purchases and behavior, as long as the rules are clearly stated and everyone who fits those criteria gets the same deal.

• Programs can now target specific groups of members with discounts or offers using their purchase history, preferences, or behaviors.
• The program must explain these targeting rules in its official terms so members know how they work.
• Any member who meets the required criteria for an offer must receive that same offer.

• This amendment was voted down and did not pass, so it does not change current law.
• The text only explains what is allowed but does not define exactly how 'purchase history' or 'behaviors' are measured.

Plain English: This amendment creates an exception so that insurance companies are not considered to be using illegal individualized price setting when they follow specific state rules for pricing.

• Adds a new rule stating that the ban on 'individualized price setting' does not apply to insurers or fraternal benefit societies if their actions follow Section 10-3-1104.9 and related insurance commissioner rules.

• The amendment text only shows where words are added, removed, or renumbered in the bill; it does not explain what Section 10-3-1104.9 actually requires insurers to do.
• Because the specific rules for insurance pricing mentioned in the law are not included here, we cannot describe exactly how those companies must set their prices.

Plain English: This amendment creates an exception to the ban on individualized price setting for licensed lenders when they make credit decisions.

• The bill will no longer count certain credit actions as illegal 'individualized price setting' if done by a true lender with proper licenses from the U.S. or any state.
• This exception covers specific steps like applying for credit, deciding loan terms, granting loans, or refusing to lend money.
• Protected lenders include mortgage brokers, mortgage companies, banks, savings and loans, and credit unions that meet federal or state definitions.

• The amendment does not explain what happens if a lender is found to be 'evading' the law by structuring deals in specific ways.
• It relies on other sections of Colorado law (like Sections 5-3.5-101 and 12-10-702) for exact definitions of terms like 'mortgage broker,' which are not included here.