The attorney general and the district attorneys of the several judicial districts of this state are concurrently responsible for the enforcement of this article 1. Until the Colorado supreme court adopts a venue provision relating to this article 1, actions instituted pursuant to this article 1 may be brought in the county where an alleged deceptive trade practice occurred or where any portion of a transaction involving an alleged deceptive trade practice occurred, or in the county where the principal place of business of any defendant is located, or in the county in which any defendant resides. An action under this article 1 brought by the attorney general or a district attorney does not require proof that a deceptive trade practice has a significant public impact.
Source: L. 69: p. 376, § 11. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-5-11. L. 73: p. 620, § 4. L. 77: Entire section R&RE, p. 348, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 357, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2019: Entire section amended, (HB 19-1289), ch. 268, p. 2515, § 1, effective May 23.
ANNOTATION
Amendment to this section not retroactive. The 2019 amendment to this section that specifies that an action brought under this article 1 by the attorney general or a district attorney does not require proof that a deceptive trade practice has a significant public impact does not apply retroactively. The required presumptions that the amendment was intended to change rather than merely clarify the intent of this section and that it was intended to be prospective could not be rebutted by the evidence. State v. Ctr. for Excel. in Higher Educ., 2021 COA 117, 499 P.3d 1081, aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 2023 CO 23, 529 P.3d 599.
Applied in Barreras v. People, 636 P.2d 686 (Colo. 1981).