(1) The provisions of
this article shall be available in a civil action for any claim against any person who has engaged
in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice listed in this article. An action
under this section shall be available to any person who:
(a) Is an actual or potential consumer of the defendant's goods, services, or property and
is injured as a result of such deceptive trade practice, or is a residential subscriber, as defined in
section 6-1-903 (9), who receives unlawful telephone solicitation, as defined in section 6-1-903
(10); or
(b) Is any successor in interest to an actual consumer who purchased the defendant's
goods, services, or property; or
(c) In the course of the person's business or occupation, is injured as a result of such
deceptive trade practice.
(2) Except in a class action or a case brought for a violation of section 6-1-709, and
notwithstanding any other law, any person who, in a private civil action, is found to have
engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice listed in this article 1 is
liable in an amount equal to the sum of:
(a) The greater of:
(I) The amount of actual damages sustained, including prejudgment interest of either
eight percent per year or at the rate provided in section 13-21-101, whichever is greater, from the
date the claim under this article 1 accrued; or
(II) Five hundred dollars; or
(III) Three times the amount of actual damages sustained, if it is established by clear and
convincing evidence that such person engaged in bad faith conduct; plus
(b) In the case of any successful action to enforce said liability, the costs of the action
together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.
(2.3) As used in subsection (2) of this section, "bad faith conduct" means fraudulent,
willful, knowing, or intentional conduct that causes injury.
(2.5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, in the case of any
violation of section 6-1-709, in addition to interest, costs of the action, and reasonable attorney
fees as determined by the court, the prevailing party shall be entitled only to damages in an
amount sufficient to refund moneys actually paid for a manufactured home not delivered in
accordance with the provisions of section 6-1-709.
(2.7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, in the case of any
violation of section 6-1-105 (1)(ss), the court may award reasonable costs of the action and
attorney fees and interest, and in addition, the prevailing party shall be entitled only to damages
in an amount sufficient to refund moneys actually paid for the installation of a manufactured
home not installed in accordance with the provisions of part 33 of article 32 of title 24, C.R.S.,
that apply to the installation of manufactured homes.
(2.9) In a case certified as a class action, a successful plaintiff may recover actual
damages, injunctive relief allowed by law, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.
(3) Any person who brings an action under this article 1 that is found by the court to be
frivolous, groundless and in bad faith, or for the purpose of harassment shall be liable to the
defendant for the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the
court.
(4) Costs and attorney fees shall be awarded to the attorney general or a district attorney
in all actions where the attorney general or the district attorney successfully enforces this article.
Source: L. 69: p. 376, § 12. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-5-12. L. 86: Entire section amended, p.
446, § 5, effective April 17. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 360, § 9, effective July 1. L. 98:
IP(2) amended and (2.5) added, p. 748, § 3, effective August 5. L. 99: Entire section amended, p.
636, § 1, effective May 18. L. 2000: (2.7) added, p. 1162, § 4, effective July 1, 2001. L. 2001:
(1)(a) amended, p. 1461, § 3, effective August 8. L. 2003: (2.7) amended, p. 550, § 4, effective
March 5. L. 2019: IP(2), (2)(a)(I), and (3) amended, (HB 19-1289), ch. 268, p. 2517, § 4,
effective May 23. L. 2022: (2.9) added, (HB 22-1071), ch. 36, p. 190, § 1, effective August 10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
78
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998).
Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998).
· cites it 119× “1996), affirming the trial court's order awarding treble damages to the respondents, Patricia and Rueben Walter (the Walters), pursuant to section 6-1-113, 2 C.R.S. (1992). We address the question of whether the court of appeals properly found that the Walters had standing to…”
Martinez v. Lewis, 969 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1998).
· cites it 36× “[8] Entitled "Damages," section 6-1-113 provides in pertinent part: The provisions of this article shall be available to any person in a civil action for any claim against any person who has engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice listed in section…”
US Fax Law Ctr., Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 205 P.3d 512 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “FLC contends that insofar as the award of attorney fees pertains to the dismissal of its CCPA claims, section 13-17-201 conflicts with section 6-1-113. Relying on Houdek v. Mobil Oil Corp.”
Shekarchian v. Maxx Auto, 2019 COA 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “” § 6-1-113(2.3). 24 ¶ 58 The court made the following finding with respect to bad faith conduct: The Court also finds that Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence this business practice was conducted by Defendant in bad faith.”
DREAM FINDERS HOMES LLC, a Florida Ltd. Liab. Co., & DFH Mandarin, LLC, a Florida Ltd. Liab. Co., & v. WEYERHAEUSER NR Co., a Washington Corp., & Cross-Appellee., 506 P.3d 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Thus, because the CCPA provides a statutory cause of action, see § 6-1-113(1), C.R.S. 2021, the economic loss rule does not bar Homes and Mandarin's CCPA claim under the reasoning of Bermel .”
Martinez v. Nash Finch Co., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Colo. 2012).
· cites it 19× “Because this Court is asked to apply Colorado law, it defers to Robinson insofar as it determined that the remedies provided in subsections 2(a) and (b) of the version of § 6-1-113 then in effect were unavailable to class members.”
Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196 (Colo. 2006).
· cites it 5× “The CCPA protects all consumers of legal services from the perpetration of fraud on the public.”
Heritage Vill. Owners Ass'n v. Golden Heritage Investors, Ltd., 89 P.3d 513 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Section 6-1-113(2), C.R.S.2003, of the CCPA provides in relevant part that a person who engaged in a listed deceptive trade practice shall be liable for the greater of: (I) The amount of actual damages sustained; or (II) Five hundred dollars; or (III) Three times the amount of…”
Colorado Ex Rel. Salazar v. Jensen (In Re Jensen), 395 B.R. 472 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2008).
· cites it 8× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-1-113(2)(a). As to that provision, the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that “the availability of treble damages .”
Payan v. Nash Finch Co., 310 P.3d 212 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “The complaint alleged the following five claims for relief: deceptive trade practices; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; civil theft; and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), § 6-1-113(2), CRS.2011. The complaint was not served on…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(1) — 22 cases
Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998).
“1996), affirming the trial court's order awarding treble damages to the respondents, Patricia and Rueben Walter (the Walters), pursuant to section 6-1-113, 2 C.R.S. (1992). We address the question of whether the court of appeals properly found that the Walters had standing to…”
Martinez v. Lewis, 969 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1998).
“[8] Entitled "Damages," section 6-1-113 provides in pertinent part: The provisions of this article shall be available to any person in a civil action for any claim against any person who has engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice listed in section…”
DREAM FINDERS HOMES LLC, a Florida Ltd. Liab. Co., & DFH Mandarin, LLC, a Florida Ltd. Liab. Co., & v. WEYERHAEUSER NR Co., a Washington Corp., & Cross-Appellee., 506 P.3d 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
“Thus, because the CCPA provides a statutory cause of action, see § 6-1-113(1), C.R.S. 2021, the economic loss rule does not bar Homes and Mandarin's CCPA claim under the reasoning of Bermel .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(1)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2) — 9 cases
Martinez v. Nash Finch Co., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Colo. 2012).
“Because this Court is asked to apply Colorado law, it defers to Robinson insofar as it determined that the remedies provided in subsections 2(a) and (b) of the version of § 6-1-113 then in effect were unavailable to class members.”
Heritage Vill. Owners Ass'n v. Golden Heritage Investors, Ltd., 89 P.3d 513 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“Section 6-1-113(2), C.R.S.2003, of the CCPA provides in relevant part that a person who engaged in a listed deceptive trade practice shall be liable for the greater of: (I) The amount of actual damages sustained; or (II) Five hundred dollars; or (III) Three times the amount of…”
Payan v. Nash Finch Co., 310 P.3d 212 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“The complaint alleged the following five claims for relief: deceptive trade practices; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; civil theft; and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), § 6-1-113(2), CRS.2011. The complaint was not served on…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2)(a) — 4 cases
Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998).
“1996), affirming the trial court's order awarding treble damages to the respondents, Patricia and Rueben Walter (the Walters), pursuant to section 6-1-113, 2 C.R.S. (1992). We address the question of whether the court of appeals properly found that the Walters had standing to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2)(a)(III) — 2 cases
Shekarchian v. Maxx Auto, 2019 COA 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“” § 6-1-113(2.3). 24 ¶ 58 The court made the following finding with respect to bad faith conduct: The Court also finds that Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence this business practice was conducted by Defendant in bad faith.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2)(b) — 9 cases
DREAM FINDERS HOMES LLC, a Florida Ltd. Liab. Co., & DFH Mandarin, LLC, a Florida Ltd. Liab. Co., & v. WEYERHAEUSER NR Co., a Washington Corp., & Cross-Appellee., 506 P.3d 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
“Thus, because the CCPA provides a statutory cause of action, see § 6-1-113(1), C.R.S. 2021, the economic loss rule does not bar Homes and Mandarin's CCPA claim under the reasoning of Bermel .”
Payan v. Nash Finch Co., 310 P.3d 212 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“The complaint alleged the following five claims for relief: deceptive trade practices; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; civil theft; and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), § 6-1-113(2), CRS.2011. The complaint was not served on…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(3) — 1 case
US Fax Law Ctr., Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 205 P.3d 512 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“FLC contends that insofar as the award of attorney fees pertains to the dismissal of its CCPA claims, section 13-17-201 conflicts with section 6-1-113. Relying on Houdek v. Mobil Oil Corp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(4) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(8) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(l)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(l)(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.