Summary#

HB 26-1426, the Department of Law Legislative Report, amends Colorado laws on litigation budget discussions, consumer protection, and consumer credit. Its stated goal is to implement recommendations in the Department of Law’s 2026 legislative report. The supplied status says it is signed into law; the bill text provided is incomplete.

• The Attorney General may ask the Joint Budget Committee to discuss potential budget impacts of current litigation in an executive session. The committee may hold one; it is not required to. The case does not have to be named in the meeting announcement, and documents prepared under this provision are not public records under the Colorado Open Records Act.
• The bill creates three-member advisory councils inside the Department of Law for debt collection and consumer protection. Each must meet at least twice a year. The Attorney General appoints members, and may assign issues for discussion.
• It requires the administrator for consumer credit laws to adopt rules or issue guidance by December 31, 2026, clarifying how a statutory-interest provision applies to medical debt.
• It removes many listed violations from the Colorado Consumer Protection Act’s list of deceptive trade practices and changes some of the Act’s definitions and enforcement provisions. The bill does not, in the text provided, repeal all the separate laws those violations may involve.
• It sets September 1, 2032, as a repeal date for the new advisory councils and schedules them for review. It also schedules several other advisory councils for review by that date.

What it means for you#

• People with consumer credit or medical debt: The bill requires rules or guidance on how the statutory-interest provision applies to medical debt. The supplied text does not change the interest rate itself.
• Consumers and businesses: The bill removes numerous listed violations from the Consumer Protection Act’s list of deceptive trade practices. This may affect which violations can be pursued under that Act. The separate laws behind those entries may still apply.
• People affected by consumer-protection investigations: The Attorney General or a district attorney may seek information from a person who has relevant information about a suspected deceptive trade practice, even if that person is not suspected of committing it. The text does not create an application or review process for consumers.
• Debt collectors, consumer advocates, businesses, and the public: The new councils provide a place for discussion, not a new independent agency or a front-line service. Members may be reimbursed for necessary expenses.
• Taxpayers and the public: Legislative discussions about potential litigation costs may happen in executive session, with the case omitted from the meeting announcement. This is a power, not a requirement to hold such a session.

Money#

The bill requires staff and advisory work, but no cost estimate is available.

• The Department of Law may reimburse advisory council members for actual and necessary expenses.
• The Attorney General and Joint Budget Committee may use staff and expertise to prepare for or discuss litigation budget impacts. The bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
• No appropriation, expected savings, or revenue estimate appears in the supplied material.

What is unclear#

• The supplied bill text ends partway through a section and may omit later provisions. The complete enacted text was not supplied.
• The parent statutes were not supplied, so I could not verify which wording is new and which was already in current law. This matters for some amendments, including the consumer-credit discrimination exemption shown in the bill.
• The bill does not set rules for how the new councils choose discussion topics beyond matters assigned by the Attorney General, or require public reports about their work.
• It is unclear how removing listed practices from the Consumer Protection Act affects enforcement under other laws or remedies available to consumers.
• The supplied materials do not include the Department of Law’s report, so its recommendations and supporting reasons cannot be checked.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to let budget lawmakers discuss possible litigation costs with the Attorney General while limiting public release of sensitive case information.
• The two new councils could give consumer advocates, business representatives, and members of the public a regular way to discuss debt collection and consumer-protection issues with the Department of Law.
• Requiring clarification of how statutory interest applies to medical debt could make that rule clearer for people and creditors.

Case against#

• The litigation-session provision reduces public visibility: the case need not be named in the announcement, and related documents are not public records under this provision.
• The bill creates councils but does not require them to publish findings or recommendations. Their usefulness may depend on how the Attorney General uses them.
• Removing many practices from the Consumer Protection Act’s deceptive-trade list could reduce the ways those practices are enforced under that Act. The supplied text does not explain the effect on other enforcement options.