(1) Any civil action commenced pursuant to this article 4 must be brought within four years after the date that the cause of action accrued. For purposes of this article 4, a cause of action accrues:
(a) When the circumstances giving rise to the cause of action are discovered or should have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence; or
(b) On the date that the last in a series of acts or practices in violation of this article 4 occurred, including any acquisitions or series of acquisitions that, in the aggregate, may constitute a violation of this article 4.
(2) Any criminal proceeding brought pursuant to this article 4 must be commenced within six years after the alleged criminal act occurred.
(3) If the attorney general commences a proceeding or action for any violation of this article 4, the running of the statute of limitations with respect to every cause of action that is based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in the proceeding or action is suspended during the pendency of the proceeding or action and for one year after the conclusion of the proceeding or action.
(4) Whenever any civil or criminal proceeding is brought by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any federal antitrust laws, the running of the statute of limitations with respect to any action under this article 4 that is based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in the federal proceeding is suspended during the pendency of the federal proceeding and for one year after the conclusion of the federal proceeding.
(5) Except as expressly provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, no other limitation terminates the period within which the attorney general may file an action for a violation of this article 4.
Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2517, § 2, effective June 7.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-118 as it existed prior to 2023.
Notes of Decisions
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 280 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 5× “§ 6-4-119, C.R.S. (2011) ("It is the intent of the general assembly that, in construing this article, the courts shall use as a guide interpretations given the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust laws.”
Smalley & Co. v. Emerson & Cuming, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Colo. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-119 (Supp.1992). Because both the case law and the legislative history suggest that the federal and state statutes should be construed together, my analysis on plaintiff’s federal antitrust claims applies equally to the state law antitrust claim.”
Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See § 6-4-114(1), (affording private right of action to "any person" injured by "any violation" of the Act); see also § 6-4-119, C.R.S8.2001 (expressing intent of General Assembly that, in construing the Act, courts should use as a guide interpretation by federal courts of…”
Stifflear v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 931 P.2d 471 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Section 6-4-119 of the 1992 Act states that Colorado courts “shall use as a guide interpretations given by the federal court to comparable federal antitrust laws.”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 298 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “1984); see also § 6-4-119, C.R.S.2009. Bid rigging is a per se violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.”
City of Colorado Springs v. Mountain View Elec. Ass'n, 925 P.2d 1378 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 6-4-119 C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2) (“It is the intent of the general assembly that, in construing [the new Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992], the courts shall use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust laws.”
Branta, LLC v. Newfield Prod. Co., 310 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (D. Colo. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See C.R.S. § 6-4-119 ("[i]t is the intent of the general assembly that, in construing this article, the courts shall use as a guide interpretations given the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust laws.”
Crownalytics, LLC v. SPINS, LLC (D. Colo. 2024).
· cites it 5× “” Compare Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-119 (1992) (former § 6-4-119, relating to interpretation, repealed 2023), with Colo.”
Crownalytics, LLC v. SPINS, LLC (D. Colo. 2023).
“§ 6-4-119 (“It is the intent of the general assembly that, in construing [the CAA], the courts shall use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust laws.”
Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 1231 (D. Colo. 1997).
· cites it 2× “1992) (applying analysis of federal antitrust claims to Colorado antitrust claims in granting motion for summary judgment where parties did not separately address state antitrust claims); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-119 (providing that in construing the Colorado Antitrust Act, “the…”
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.