Also known as the Colorado Consumer Protection Act or CCPA for Short
Consumer protection laws have been passed in Colorado to protect consumers from fraudulent business practices, defective products, and dangerous goods and services.
Have you or someone you know been the victim of a fraudulent or deceptive business practice? Our office has successfully sought damages against businesses who have decided to cheat and deceive their customers instead of giving quality work for a fair price.
These cases in the past have been to expensive to help most consumers, however, in 2019, the Colorado General Assembly has passed a provision that allows people who have been harmed by the Misrepresentations or Deceptive practices of a business to be compensated for their attorney Fees and allow triple damages as a penalty to help these people get justice for their individual situations.
As the Colorado Court system has further defined this law the following provisions have come to light, however this information changes from time to time. There is also something called as statute of Limitation which places a restriction on how long a person has to bring a case to the Court if they believe they have been injured. The CCPA has a three Year Statute of Limitation. Please speak with an experienced attorney before relying on any of the following:
A promise made in a contract cannot constitute a misrepresentation unless the promisor did not intend to honor the promise at the time it was made. Rhino Linings USA, 62 P.3d at 148.
Only knowing misrepresentations are actionable under the CCPA, as there must be an intent to defraud. Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196 (Colo. 2006); see Brodeur v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo. 2007); State ex rel. Suthers v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc., 260 P.3d 9 (Colo. App. 2009) (defendant who did not have actual knowledge of falsity of his statements acted with mere negligence and did not “knowingly” make a false representation within the meaning of CCPA).
Although some of the deceptive practices listed suggest that there can be a negligent violation of the statute, see, e.g., § 6-1-105(1)(f) and (g), the Colorado Supreme Court has held that liability under the CCPA may be implicated only by intentional conduct, and that there can be no liability where a misrepresentation was “caused by negligence or an honest mistake.” Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196, 204 (Colo. 2006); see also Brodeur v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 169 P.3d 139, 156 (Colo. 2007) (“The crux of a CCPA claim is a deceptive trade practice, which, by definition, must be intentionally inflicted on the consumer public.” (quoting Crowe, 126 P.3d at 204)); Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 230 P.3d 1275 (Colo. App. 2010) (“bait-and-switch” claim requires intent to deceive); State ex rel. Suthers v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc., 260 P.3d 9 (Colo. App. 2009) (defendant who acted with mere negligence and not actual knowledge of falsity did not “knowingly” make a false representation under section 6-1-105(1)(b), (c), and (e)).
As a matter of law, the failure of a service provider to inform a consumer that it was acting in conformity with the law does not state a claim for an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the CCPA. Wainscott v. Centura Health Corp., 2014 COA 105, ¶ 67, 351 P.3d 513 (hospital’s failure to inform a patient that it was pursuing a statutory hospital lien to collect actual charges rather than bill Medicare for a reduced amount, as it was legally allowed to do,
was not an unfair or deceptive trade practice
Here at Kingsford Law Offices, we will listen to your concerns and advise you whether we believe you have a claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, please contact us today at 970-351-8750.