Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 6
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-115 (2026)

Limitations

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All actions brought under this article must be commenced within three years after the date on which the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice occurred or the date on which the last in a series of such acts or practices occurred or within three years after the consumer discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the occurrence of the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice. The period of limitation provided in this section may be extended for a period of one year if the plaintiff proves that failure to timely commence the action was caused by the defendant engaging in conduct calculated to induce the plaintiff to refrain from or postpone the commencement of the action.

Source: L. 87: Entire section added, p. 360, § 10, effective July 1.

6-1-116. Investigation of unfair business practices by regulated persons - district attorney requests for records from licensing authorities - interagency agreements with attorney general - legislative declaration - definitions. (1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that:

(a) Federal and state consumer protection and unfair trade laws, such as those prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices, price fixing, and monopolization, exist to protect consumers against unfair business practices that undermine fair competition, a thriving small business sector, and consumers' rights to make informed economic decisions;

(b) District attorneys and the attorney general are tasked with, and have the expertise needed for, enforcing consumer protection laws in the state;

(c) A licensing authority might have information relevant to a complaint alleging that a person that the licensing authority regulates has committed unfair or deceptive trade practices; and

(d) Therefore, it best serves the consumer protection interests of the state to allow a licensing authority to share with a district attorney or the attorney general information regarding a regulated person, which information may be relevant to a consumer protection investigation of the regulated person.

(2) (a) Upon receiving a complaint alleging a violation of the consumer protection laws set forth in this article 1, a district attorney may request records from a licensing authority regarding a person that is the subject of the complaint if the complaint alleges that:

(I) The complainant suffered damages in an amount of at least twenty thousand dollars and the district attorney determines the amount of damages alleged appears to be a reasonable amount in relation to the alleged conduct forming the basis of the complaint; or

(II) Two or more persons regulated by the licensing authority jointly engaged in conduct that forms the basis of the complaint.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law that may prohibit a licensing authority from complying with this subsection (2), to facilitate the district attorney's investigation into and enforcement of the complaint, a licensing authority shall provide the district attorney with copies of, or access to inspect, the records requested if the licensing authority has already determined it will not take action against the regulated person or persons.

(c) This subsection (2) does not apply to a person regulated by a board or commission.

(3) In addition to the costs and attorney fees that the regulated person or persons complained of are entitled to recover from the complainant pursuant to section 6-1-113 (3), if a court determines that the complaint is frivolous, groundless, and was filed in bad faith, or if the regulated person or persons prevail or substantially prevail in the matter, the court's order may also require the complainant to pay the regulated person's or persons' costs incurred, actual damages sustained, and reasonable attorney fees incurred in relation to:

(a) The district attorney's or attorney general's investigation of the matter; and

(b) The licensing authority's investigation of a complaint against the regulated person or persons if the court determines that the two complaints were filed by the same complainant and in regard to the same matter.

(4) Subject to approval by the head of an executive department, a state licensing authority within the department may enter into an interagency agreement with the attorney general or the attorney general's designee for the referral of any complaint that appears to allege a violation of this article 1 or article 2 or 4 of this title 6. The interagency agreement may provide for referrals of complaints, information sharing, confidentiality requirements, and other terms that facilitate the investigation and enforcement of complaints alleging violations of consumer protection or unfair trade laws.

(5) Any copies of records that a licensing authority sends to a district attorney, the attorney general, or the attorney general's designee pursuant to this section are records of the investigation of a prosecuting attorney pursuant to section 24-72-204 (2)(a)(I) and are not subject to the right of inspection under the "Colorado Open Records Act", part 2 of article 72 of title 24.

(6) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "District attorney" includes the district attorney and the chief deputy district attorneys, special deputy district attorneys, deputy district attorneys, and assistant district attorneys that the district attorney appoints pursuant to part 2 of article 1 of title 20.

(b) "Licensing authority" means a state licensing authority or a local licensing authority.

(c) "Local licensing authority" means the governing body of a statutory or home rule municipality, county, or city and county that is authorized to issue or approve a local license to a regulated person or for an activity.

(d) (I) "State licensing authority" means a department or division of the state that is authorized to issue to or approve a state license for a regulated person, which state license only authorizes the licensee to perform activities at specific premises.

(II) "State licensing authority" does not include any board or commission.

Source: L. 2022: Entire section added, (SB 22-157), ch. 154, p. 980, § 1, effective August 10.

PART 2

AUTO RENTAL CONTRACTS - COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVERS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 12× “" Another indication that the Act is limited to consumers is in the text of section 6-1-115, which defines the statute of limitations for actions brought under the CCPA.”
Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2003). · cites it 2× “See § 6-1-115. Our review of the record conflicts with and does not support the court of appeals’ statement that Rhino promised territorial exclusivity “with no intention to honor that promise.”
Oaster v. Robertson, 173 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Colo. 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 6-1-115; 9. Replevin — three years. Col.”
Damian v. Mountain Parks Elec., Inc., 310 P.3d 242 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “| 12 As an issue of first impression, we conclude that, under the cireumstances presented here, the equitable tolling doctrine is not available to alter the limitations period set forth in the Colorado Consumer Protec tion Act (CCPA), section 6-1-115, C.R.S. 2012. We also…”
Stiff v. Bilden Homes, Inc., 88 P.3d 639 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Section 6-1-115, C.R.S.2002, of the Consumer Protection Act provides that “[a]ll actions brought under this article must be commenced within three years .”
Robinson v. Lynmar Racquet Club, Inc., 851 P.2d 274 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “In 1987, the CCPA was amended and a limitations provision, § 6-1-115, C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2), was added.”
Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 891 F. Supp. 1469 (D. Colo. 1995). · cites it 2× “C.R.S. § 6-1-115 (1992). In February 1991 the bankruptcy trustee inspected M & L’s inventory and found boxes full of dirt and bricks instead of computer equipment.”
Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Colo. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-1-115. Full 'Draw argues, and the Court agrees, that for AMO to overcome the three year statute of limitations, at least one of the statements made after September 14, 1996 (three years before the date the counterclaims were filed) must constitute a…”
O'Connor v. BMW of North Am., LLC (D. Colo. 2020). · cites it 4× “A claim under the CCPA accrues on “the date on which the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice occurred or the date on which the last in a series of such acts or practices occurred,” or when “the consumer discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should…”
Colorado v. Ctr. for Excellence (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “” § 6-1-115, C.R.S. 2025. If the evidence is disputed, the point at which a claim accrues is generally a question of fact left for the fact finder to resolve, see Jackson v.”
McNees v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (D. Colo. 2020). · cites it 2× “2013) (applying two-year tort catch-all statute of limitations contained in Colorado Revised Statute § 13-80-102(1)(a) to civil conspiracy), and his CCPA claim needed to accrue on or after September 17, 2015, see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-115 13 Defendants’ statute of limitations…”
Harper v. Biolife Energy Sys., LLC (D. Colo. 2022). · cites it 2× “Additionally, Defendants point out that Harper “has not alleged why this Alaska statute governs instead of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (the “CCPA”).”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.