This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act".
Source: L. 69: p. 376, § 13. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-5-13.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For note, "Implied Warranties — Sales of Used Cars in Colorado", see 42 U. Colo. L. Rev. 473 (1971). For article, "Federal Practice and Procedure", see 57 Den. L.J. 263 (1980). For comment, "Antitrust Law in Colorado: Back on Track", see 60 Den. L.J. 645 (1983). For article, "Franchise Regulation", see 15 Colo. Law. 395 (1986). For article, "Antitrust Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with antitrust law, see 64 Den. U.L. Rev. 131 (1987).
The general assembly acted well within the police power of the state when it enacted the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of Am., Inc., 177 Colo. 97, 493 P.2d 660 (1972).
It is in the public interest to invoke the state's police power to prevent the use of methods that have a tendency or capacity to attract customers through deceptive trade practices, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, an out-growth of this conclusion, as such cannot be overturned. People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of Am., Inc., 177 Colo. 97, 493 P.2d 660 (1972).
Hence, a challenging party has a heavy burden to overcome with respect to this act's alleged unconstitutionality, especially in light of its particular subject matter. People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of Am., Inc., 177 Colo. 97, 493 P.2d 660 (1972).
A court has an equally certain duty to construe the act in such a way that it is not void for vagueness whenever a reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of Am., Inc., 177 Colo. 97, 493 P.2d 660 (1972).
Broad legislative purpose of this act is to provide prompt, economical, and readily available remedies against consumer fraud. W. Food Plan, Inc. v. District Court, 198 Colo. 251, 598 P.2d 1038 (1979).
"Public impact" necessary to invoke protections of act. In a case involving life insurance, where challenged conduct of insurer was private in nature, policyholder was a sophisticated businessman with the aid of legal counsel, and there was insufficient evidence of impact on other policyholders, the treble damages provisions of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act were held not to apply. Coors v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 112 P.3d 59 (Colo. 2005).
A private cause of action by an insured against an insurer under this act is not preempted by the Colorado unfair competition - deceptive practices act §§ 10-3-1101 to 10-3-1114. Showpiece Homes Corp. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 38 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2001).
This act is remedial legislation and amendment of remedies therein does not affect preexisting rights or obligations. Therefore, amended version of act containing enhanced civil enforcement provisions could be applied to conduct which occurred prior to amendments. Robinson v. Lynmar Racquet Club, Inc., 851 P.2d 274 (Colo. App. 1993).