HB1010 prohibits price gouging during declared disasters in Colorado. The bill expands the definition of “disaster” to include certain market disruptions, including trade disruptions or atypical disruptions affecting the production, distribution, or consumption of a product or service. It then creates a specific price-gouging standard for goods and services covered by the existing statute when the governor’s disaster declaration cites the new subsection.
Under the bill, a price increase of more than 10 percent over the pre-disaster price may be treated as price gouging for listed necessities, or over the price charged by a similarly situated seller if the seller did not previously sell the item or service. The bill also provides an exception where the seller can prove the increase was directly attributable to seasonal pricing. The act applies only to conduct occurring on or after its effective date and is subject to referendum.
The bill’s impact is to amend Colorado’s disaster-management and consumer-protection laws, particularly the statutes governing emergency declarations and deceptive trade practices. It gives the state a clearer enforcement threshold for excessive pricing during emergencies and broadens the circumstances under which price-gouging rules can apply, potentially affecting retailers, suppliers, and service providers selling necessities during disasters or market shocks.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive of the bill’s anti-price-gouging purpose, as reflected by its passage through both chambers and final concurrence on Senate amendments. However, the voting history shows some division, especially in the Senate Committee of the Whole and on the Senate floor, suggesting disagreement over the scope of the new standard, the inclusion of market disruptions in the disaster definition, or the practical effects on businesses. The House and Senate ultimately approved the measure, but not without several close votes.
The main points of contention appear to be how broadly to define a disaster, whether a 10 percent price-increase threshold is the right benchmark, and how much flexibility sellers should have to justify higher prices. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a consumer-protection measure aimed at preventing exploitation during emergencies, while opponents may have been concerned about overreach, compliance burdens, and the risk of penalizing legitimate supply-chain or seasonal pricing changes.
Impact
HB1010 amends Colorado Revised Statutes sections 24-33.5-703 and 6-1-730. It expands the statutory definition of “disaster” and adds a new price-gouging trigger tied to gubernatorial disaster declarations, creating a more specific enforcement standard for the Colorado Attorney General and other regulators under the state’s deceptive trade practices framework. The bill affects sellers of goods and services listed as necessities during declared disasters, while preserving an affirmative defense for seasonal pricing.
Sentiment
The bill’s overall sentiment was favorable, with enough support to pass both chambers and survive Senate amendments. At the same time, the close and split votes in committee and on the Senate floor indicate meaningful reservations among some legislators about the bill’s breadth and economic effects. The pattern suggests broad agreement with the goal of preventing price gouging, but less consensus on the precise legal test and scope of coverage.
Contention
The most notable contention centered on the bill’s expanded definition of disaster to include market disruptions and on the new 10 percent price-increase threshold for finding price gouging. Some legislators appeared to support stronger consumer protections during emergencies, while others likely worried that the bill could capture legitimate price increases caused by supply shortages, transportation costs, or seasonal demand. The seasonal-pricing exception was an important compromise point, but the close votes show that the balance between consumer protection and business flexibility remained disputed.