February 22, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for consumer law

SB 12-003: Purposes for which Consumer Credit Information Can Be Used by Employers

January 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

On January 11, 2012, Sen. Carroll and Rep. Fischer introduced SB 12-003 – Concerning the use of consumer credit information by employers. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill creates the “Employment Opportunity Act,” which specifies the purposes for which consumer credit information (i.e., consumer credit reports and credit scores) can be used by an employer or potential employer. Specifically, the bill:

  • Prohibits an employer’s use of consumer credit information for employment purposes if the information is unrelated to the job;
  • Requires an employer to disclose to an employee or applicant for employment (jointly, “employee”) when the employer uses the employee’s consumer credit information to take adverse action against him or her and the particular credit information upon which the employer relied;
  • Authorizes an employee aggrieved by a violation of the above provisions to bring suit for an injunction, damages, or both; and
  • Requires the department of labor and employment to enforce the laws related to employer use of consumer credit information.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

Colorado Supreme Court: Causation and Injury Elements of Consumer Protect Act Claims May Be Inferred from Circumstantial Evidence Common to the Class

November 2, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc. on October 31, 2011.

Class Actions—Burden of Proof—Circumstantial Evidence—Inference or Presumption—Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Applying the standards enunciated in Jackson v. Unocal Corp. (Oct. 31, 2011, No. 09SC668), the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court failed to rigorously analyze the evidence in deciding to grant class certification. The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals’ decision remanding the case to the trial court to conduct such an analysis.

Consistent with its opinion in BP America Production Co. v. Patterson, 185 P. 3d 811 (Colo. 2008),the Court held that the causation and injury elements of plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act claims may be inferred from circumstantial evidence common to the class. The Court further held that defendant has the opportunity to rebut such class-wide inferences with individual evidence. The Court concluded that, in its analysis, the trial court neglected to consider the evidence offered by defendant to refute plaintiffs’ class-wide theories of liability.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

Advertising Law in 2011: Attending This Program Could Help Support Your Immune System!*

August 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

* Cannot be verified by any credible medical organization.

But that doesn’t mean you won’t see some real benefits from attending this excellent program on September 9, 2011. CBA-CLE is bringing in, just for you, legal professionals from the Federal Trade Commission and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, nationally known private practitioners, and national business experts who will join together in Denver for this informative workshop about complying with truth-in-advertising laws.

No other program in the state will offer you the in-depth, comprehensive approach that this seminar will with its distinguish faculty of experts!

Topics of the program will include:

  • Priorities from the Colorado Attorney’s General’s Office, Consumer Protection Section
  • Federal Trade Commission Updates from the Bureau of Consumer Protection
  • Substantiating Advertising Claims, including Health Claims and Green Guides
  • The Use of Social Media in Advertising
  • Copyright and Trademark Primer for Non-Intellectual Property Attorneys
  • Competitive Issues, including the Lanham Act and National Advertising Division

Register today and mark your calendars for this great program. We look forward to seeing you there!

CLE Program: Advertising Law in 2011

This CLE presentation will take place on Friday, September 9. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in three formats: video on-demand, mp3 download, and audio CD recordings. The course materials will also be available.
Filed Under: CLE Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Governor Hickenlooper Announces Appointments to the Colorado Commission on Low Income Energy Assistance

June 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Last Friday, June 24, 2011, Governor John Hickenlooper announced his appointments to the Colorado Commission on Low Income Energy Assistance.

The Commission works through the Low Income Energy Assistance Program to collect and distribute money to eligible recipients for use in the payment of electric and gas utility bills. The members appointed are:

  • Jacinda Mari Fonseca-Hughes, of Limon, to serve as an assistance recipient; term to expire December 2, 2012.
  • Douglas Andrew Karl, of Arvada, to serve as the designee for the Governor’s Energy Office; term to expire December 2, 2012.
  • Sister Karen Bland, of Grand Junction, to serve as a public member; term to expire December 2, 2012.
  • Dr. Curtis B. Schmidt, of Littleton, to serve as an assistance recipient; term to expire on December 2, 2012.

The full press release from the Governor’s Office concerning these commission appointments can be found here.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , ,

Governor Hickenlooper Announces Appointments to Private Activity Bond Allocations Committee and Utility Consumer’s Board

June 24, 2011 By Leave a Comment

On Thursday, Governor John Hickenlooper announced his appointments to the Private Activity Bond Allocations Committee and the Utility Consumer’s Board.

The Private Activity Bond Allocations Committee reviews requests and makes recommendations to the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs on the distribution of industrial development bonds. The member appointed is:

  • Lon S. Carpenter, of Grand Junction, to represent citizen-at-large, west of the Continental Divide; term to expire July 1, 2014.

The Utility Consumers’ Board provides policy guidance to the Office of Consumer Counsel regarding rule-making, legislative projects, and general activities of the office. The board works to represent the interests of residential, agricultural, and small business users of Colorado utilities. The members appointed are:

  • Dian P. Callaghan, of Denver; term to expire July 1, 2015.
  • Marla A. Rock, of Wray; term to expire July 1, 2015.
  • Stephen Lawrence Merrill, of Colorado Springs; term to expire July 1, 2015.
  • Alan Kent Logan, of Canon City; term to expire July 1, 2015.
  • Laurie Tebo, of Divide; term to expire July 1, 2015.

The full press release from the Governor’s office concerning these board and commission appointments can be found here.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , ,

DORA Office of Outfitters Amends Rules Regarding the Regulation of Outfitters

June 16, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Department of Regulatory Agencies’ Office of Outfitters has amended rules regarding the licensing and regulation of Outfitters. Outfitters are individuals soliciting and providing, for compensation, outfitting services for the purpose of hunting or fishing on land that such individuals do not own; such services include providing:

  • transportation of individuals and supplies;
  • facilities like tents and cabins; and
  • camp gear and food.

Additionally, Outfitters’ services include guiding, leading, protecting, supervising, instructing, or training persons in the take of wildlife.

The revised rules reflect an effort to “determine if each rule promotes a balanced and sensible approach to regulation that protects the public interest while supporting economic growth for the regulation of Outfitters.” The review and amendment of the rules was conducted to ensure that each rule is still applicable given Governor Hickenlooper’s initiative of effective, efficient, and elegant government.

The complete text of the proposed rules changes can be found here.

A hearing on the amended rules will be held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at Hotel Colorado, 526 Pine Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602, beginning at 10:00 am.

Further information about the rules and hearing can be found here.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , , , ,

Department of Revenue Amends Rule Regarding Colorado Lottery’s “Raffle Draw #3″

June 16, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Department of Revenue has amended a rule regarding the Colorado Lottery Jackpot Game “Raffle Draw #3.” The revised rule, Rule 10.H, will provide the general rules and requirements for the Colorado Lottery Jackpot game known as Raffle Draw #3, such as the sale of tickets, method of selecting winning numbers, payment of prizes, and allocation of revenues.

The full release concerning the proposed rule and statutory authority can be found here.

A hearing on the amended rule will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2011, at 212 W. 3rd Street, Suite 210, Pueblo, Colorado 81003, beginning at 8:00 am.

Further information about rule and hearing can be found here.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Under Colorado Consumer Protection Act Analysis, Whether a Deceptive Trade Practice Had a Significant Impact on Customers Is a Question of Fact

June 2, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in One Creative Place, LLC v. Jet Center Partners, LLC on May 26, 2011.

Colorado Consumer Protection Act—Question of Law Versus Fact.

To establish a claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), a private citizen must prove five elements, one of which is that the deceptive trade practice had a significant impact on the public as actual or potential customers of the defendant’s business. This appeal questioned whether this element is an issue of law or a question of fact. The Court of Appeals held it is a question of fact. As a result, the Court’s review was limited to whether the trial court committed clear error by finding that the intervenor, Jet Center Partners, LLC, had not proved this element. Because the Court concluded the trial court did not commit clear error, it affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

This summary is published here courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer. Other summaries by the Colorado Court of Appeals on May 26, 2011, can be found here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

Bankruptcy Court: Colorado Homestead Exemption Should Be Liberally Construed

May 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado issued its opinion in In re Elliot on Thursday, May 12, 2011.

11 U.S.C. § 522 (b)(1) and (3), C.R.S. § 38-41-207.

Trustee objected to Debtor’s claim of “homestead proceeds” exemption for surplus funds from public trustee’s foreclosure sale of Debtor’s former residence which were held in a segregated bank account. Though Colorado’s exemption statute for homestead proceeds explicitly refers only to proceeds from sale by owner or sale following levy and execution, the Court predicted that the Colorado Supreme Court would liberally construe the statute to apply to proceeds from public trustee sale. Debtor’s exemption was upheld.

Other published Bankruptcy Court opinions can be found here. Unpublished opinions can be found here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

Denver County Court Issues Standing Order Regarding Procedures for Pattern Interrogatories and Answers

May 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

This month, Presiding Judge John M. Marcucci of the Denver County Court issued a Standing Order for Interrogatories pursuant to Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure Rule 369. The order changes motion and filing requirements for Judgment Creditors and Debtors. Judgement Creditors may propound Pattern Interrogatories without further motion or order from the court and Judgement Debtors need only forward their Answers to Interrogatories to the Creditor and not file them with the court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that when a party has obtained a judgment against the opposing party in a civil action in the Denver County Court and thereby becomes a Judgment Creditor; that the Judgment Creditor may propound Pattern Interrogatories to the Judgment Debtor without further motion or order from the Court, pursuant to Rule 369, C.R.C.P. and this Order;

FURTHER, the Judgment Debtor’s Answers to Interrogatories shall be forwarded to the Judgment Creditor only and said Answers shall not be filed with the Court by the Judgment Debtor.  Interrogatories shall include in the instructions that:

“JUDGMENT DEBTORS ARE TO FILE THEIR ANSWERS WITH ONLY THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR AND NOT THE COURT.”

FUTHER, Court Clerks issuing specifically Court approved Non-Pattern Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 369, C.R.C.P., shall deliver a copy hereof to the Judgment Creditor for service with the Interrogatories;

FURTHER, all Motions for Contempt Citations for failure to properly answer said Interrogatories shall be in compliance with Rule 407(c) C.R.C.P.  A Motion and Order for Contempt Citation, along with the Show Cause Citation itself are to be filed with the Court for issuance.  A copy of the Answers to Interrogatories, if any, and a proper return of service for the Interrogatories shall be included with said Motion.

FINALLY, the ORDER OF THE DENVER COUNTY COURT PRESIDING JUDGE, dated March 21, 2008, is hereby repealed.

A copy of the official signed order may be viewed here.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Defendant Deficient on Rent Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy to Counter a Warrantless Entry

May 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Creighton on Thursday, May 12, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner, in an effort to support his and others’ drug habits, stole large quantities of personal mail from apartment buildings and condominiums in the Denver metro area. Petitioner used the information obtained to generate false identifications and counterfeit checks, which were passed to local businesses. Over the eighteen month course of the scheme, Petitioner had four run-ins with the police, three of which uncovered the evidence at issue in his appeal. Petitioner claims that the evidence garnered during his arrests was produced in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court determined that the record supports the district court’s conclusion that the police’s inventory search of Petitioner’s luggage was undertaken pursuant to “standard criteria or established routine,” and thus “sufficiently regulated” so as to serve the purposes of a legitimate inventory search. Additionally, the Court concluded that evidence garnered from the warrantless entry into Petitioner’s room, in which incriminating evidence was in plain sight and led to his arrest, was not improper. Petitioner was on notice that rent was overdue and that he must pay or vacate the premises; Petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,

SB 11-271: Prohibiting Deceptive Solicitation of Orders for Retail Florist Services

May 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

On May 2, 2011, Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Boulder, and Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, introduced SB 11-271 – Concerning the prohibition of deceptive trade practices in the solicitation of orders for retail florist services. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

As introduced the bill makes it a deceptive trade practice to solicit retail orders for florist services without disclosing relevant information including the amount of any fee or surcharge added by the person soliciting the order and the true name, physical address, and local telephone number of the florist who will fill the order. The bill was introduced Monday, May 2, approved by the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 4 and passed second reading on Friday, May 6.

Since this summary, the bill passed its Third Reading in the Senate.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts