Summary#

HB 26-1427, titled the “Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Update,” amends Colorado’s existing pre-merger notification law; it does not create a new agency or program. Its stated goal is to update Colorado law to reflect the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act.
The law requires a filer to send the Colorado attorney general a complete electronic copy of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) form no later than one business day after filing the pre-merger notification.

• The attorney general must provide a secure way to receive and store the submitted materials, and may not charge a filing-related fee.
• The attorney general may share materials with another state only if that state has sufficiently protective confidentiality rules and assures Colorado it will keep the materials confidential.
• The attorney general must give the filer five business days’ notice before sharing materials with another state; the bill changes the previous notice period from two business days.
• The attorney general must destroy or return submitted materials within 120 days after the later of the transaction’s close or the end of directly related legal proceedings, unless a court order or other law requires otherwise.
• After written notice and three business days to fix noncompliance, the attorney general may seek a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for failures covered by the filing law. Any penalty is subject to due-process requirements.

What it means for you#

• People or businesses required to file: They must send the complete electronic HSR form to the Colorado attorney general within one business day after filing the pre-merger notification. The bill does not change filing fees: the attorney general may not charge for filing or providing the form or additional documents.
• People or businesses whose materials are shared: The attorney general must give five business days’ notice before sharing them with another state. The bill also adds confidentiality assurances as a condition of sharing.
• Filers who do not comply: The attorney general may seek a penalty after written notice and a three-business-day opportunity to fix the issue. The penalty is not automatic.
• General public: The bill changes filing, handling, and enforcement rules. It does not itself require the attorney general to approve or block a merger.

Money#

No publicly available information on the law’s implementation costs.

• The law bars fees for filing or providing the forms and documents covered by it.
• It requires the attorney general’s office to provide secure receipt and storage, but gives no staffing or cost estimate.
• The law authorizes the attorney general to seek civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day after notice and a chance to cure. It does not say how much, if anything, will be collected.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the full existing law. I could not verify which transactions or filers are covered, or the requirements in the referenced filing-law subsections beyond the changes shown here.
• The bill does not describe what counts as a secure means to receive and store materials.
• It does not explain what assurances another state must provide, or how those assurances are checked.
• The 120-day deadline has exceptions for court orders and other laws, but the bill does not explain how those exceptions will apply.
• The act says it takes effect after the 90-day period following final adjournment—August 12, 2026, if adjournment was May 13, 2026—unless a referendum petition is filed. In that case, it would take effect only if approved by voters.

Case for#

• The one-business-day deadline gives the attorney general a clear time limit for receiving a filer’s HSR form.
• Secure handling, confidentiality assurances, advance notice, and a deadline to destroy or return materials place limits on how the state handles sensitive business documents.
• A notice and cure period gives a filer a chance to correct noncompliance before the attorney general seeks a penalty.
• Sharing information with other states may support coordination on transactions, while the confidentiality conditions set limits on that sharing.

Case against#

• The filing deadline and potential daily penalty could create compliance costs or risks for people and businesses covered by the existing law. The bill provides no estimate of those costs.
• The bill requires secure storage but does not set out security standards or explain how compliance will be overseen.
• The terms for confidentiality assurances and the exceptions to the return-or-destroy deadline are not detailed.
• Because the supplied material does not show the full existing filing rules, it is unclear exactly who must comply and how the new requirements fit with every part of the current law.