Colorado treats a sales call or text to a number on its no-call list as a deceptive trade practice. That moves the claim into the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, which lets an individual plaintiff recover the greater of actual damages or $500, plus attorney fees if the plaintiff wins. Colorado also requires telemarketers to register, refresh their copy of the list every quarter, and leave caller ID visible. The statute gives a business two defenses, and the stronger one depends on written procedures in place before the call.
What does Colorado’s No-Call List Act prohibit?
Sales calls and texts to Colorado numbers on the list. Under C.R.S. § 6-1-904(1)(a), “No person or entity shall make or cause to be made any telephone solicitation to the telephone of any residential subscriber or wireless telephone service subscriber in this state who has added his or her telephone number and zip code to the Colorado no-call list.” Both landlines and cell phones are covered.
The definition of a telephone solicitation in § 6-1-903(10) reaches voice and fax messages as well as data communications, “including text messaging communication over a telephone line or through a wireless telephone,” made to encourage a purchase, rental, or investment. It doesn’t matter whether a live agent, a recorded message, or an automated dialer makes the contact. A Colorado text campaign is a telephone solicitation campaign under this statute.
Colorado’s list isn’t separate from the federal one in practice. Under § 6-1-905(3)(c), to the extent federal law allows, “the designated agent shall ensure that the Colorado no-call list includes that portion of an official national do-not-call database that relates to Colorado.” A Colorado number on the National Do Not Call Registry should be treated as a Colorado no-call number too.
Which calls and texts are exempt?
Five categories fall outside the definition. Under § 6-1-903(10)(b), a communication isn’t a telephone solicitation if it’s made with the subscriber’s prior express invitation or permission, or by a business with an established business relationship with the subscriber. Calls for 30 days after a subscriber contacts a business to ask about a purchase are exempt, unless the subscriber asks for no more calls first. Registered charities and calls made solely for political campaigns, ballot issues, or polling are exempt too.
The established business relationship has three parts. It must have been formed through a voluntary two-way communication based on an application, purchase, contract, or other transaction, it can’t have been ended by either side, and it must exist now or have existed within the past 18 months. A separate clause extends the relationship for financial institutions subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s privacy rules that regularly do business in Colorado.
The 30-day inquiry window is shorter than the federal one, which runs three months after an inquiry. A company that relies on the federal window for Colorado leads is calling for roughly 60 days the Colorado statute doesn’t protect.
Who has to register before calling Colorado residents?
Most telemarketers have two registrations to think about. The first is with the no-call program. Section 6-1-904(1)(b) requires anyone making telephone solicitations to Colorado subscribers to register under § 6-1-905, which caps the annual fee at $500 on a sliding scale and waives it for companies with fewer than five employees. Payment is made to the designated agent that maintains the list under contract with the Public Utilities Commission.
The second is with the Attorney General, for companies that meet the definition of a commercial telephone seller. Under § 6-1-303(1), “No commercial telephone seller shall conduct business in this state without having registered with the attorney general at least ten days prior to the conduct of such business.” The application includes the company’s principals, its phone numbers, and copies of its sales scripts. The definition has a long list of exclusions, including licensed insurance sellers, supervised lenders, many public companies, businesses that complete sales only at a later face-to-face meeting, and established retailers that meet certain conditions.
The Attorney General registration is where a lot of companies trip. Calling without it is an unlawful telemarketing practice under § 6-1-304, and continuing after written notice from the Attorney General or a district attorney is a misdemeanor under § 6-1-305. Each exclusion should be confirmed in writing before a campaign starts, not assumed.
What else does Colorado require of telemarketers?
Three operating rules apply to every caller. The list has to be refreshed “within thirty days after the beginning of every calendar quarter,” under § 6-1-904(4). That’s looser than the federal standard, which requires a registry download at least every 31 days, so a company following the federal schedule meets Colorado’s.
Caller ID must stay on. Under § 6-1-904(3), no one making telephone solicitations to Colorado subscribers may “knowingly utilize any method to block or otherwise circumvent such subscriber’s use of a caller identification service” when the caller’s equipment can display the number.
Cell phone directories are off limits. Section 6-1-304(4) makes it an unlawful practice to knowingly list a cell number in a directory for a commercial purpose without the owner’s consent, or to use a scanning device or other electronic means to identify a cell number and then solicit it. The cell phone owner can sue for that one directly, for consequential damages and a penalty of $300 to $500 for a first offense, rising to $500 to $1,000 for a later one. The rule doesn’t apply where the parties have a preexisting commercial relationship.
What defenses does a business have to a Colorado no-call claim?
Two, and the statute means it. Section 6-1-906(2) excuses a call if the business “has otherwise fully complied” with the Act and had already established and implemented “written practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of this part 9.” It also excuses a call caused by “an error in transcription or other technical defect” in the list as delivered, if the business wasn’t at fault.
The Colorado Supreme Court read those defenses as the full menu. In Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of Southern Colorado, 172 P.3d 888 (Colo. 2007), the court said the Act provides “two, but only two, grounds for excusing conduct that would otherwise amount to a violation.” The caller there had relied on a purchased calling list, and the number it called was a residential line its subscriber also used for business. The court held that business use didn’t remove the number from the statute’s protection. On the defense, the court said “It is not readily apparent from the record that Jan-Pro even considered itself obligated to consult the official Colorado no-call list,” and sent that issue back to the trial court.
The lesson for a business is practical. A purchased list of business numbers is not a scrub. The written-procedures defense is the one that wins cases, and it only works if the procedures existed on paper before the call, the staff followed them, and the company was otherwise in compliance, including its registration. An unregistered caller has a hard time claiming full compliance.
| Colorado rule | Source | Exposure | Defenses that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calls or texts to numbers on the no-call list | § 6-1-904(1)(a) | Greater of actual damages or $500 per private suit, and state penalties up to $20,000 per violation | Written procedures and full compliance; list error; prior express permission or an existing relationship |
| Telemarketing without no-call registration | § 6-1-904(1)(b); § 6-1-905 | State enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act | Registration with the designated agent |
| Commercial telephone seller without Attorney General registration | § 6-1-303; § 6-1-304 | Consumer Protection Act remedies, and a misdemeanor after written notice | A statutory exclusion from the seller definition |
| Blocking caller ID | § 6-1-904(3) | State enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act | Equipment that can’t display the number |
| Cell numbers found by directory or scanning | § 6-1-304(4); § 6-1-305(1)(c) | $300 to $1,000 per offense, plus damages and fees | A preexisting commercial relationship or listing consent |
How much exposure does a Colorado no-call claim carry?
Usually less than the federal statute, but enough to fund a lawsuit. Section 6-1-113(1)(a) gives a private claim to a person who “is a residential subscriber, as defined in section 6-1-903 (9), who receives unlawful telephone solicitation.” Under § 6-1-113(2), an individual plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages, $500, or three times actual damages if the plaintiff proves bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, plus costs and attorney fees if the plaintiff wins. Under § 6-1-113(2.3), bad faith means “fraudulent, willful, knowing, or intentional conduct that causes injury.”
Two features of that section help defendants. First, the private-claim clause names residential subscribers, a defined term tied to landline service from a local exchange provider. It doesn’t name wireless subscribers, even though the no-call prohibition itself covers them. A defendant sued over calls to a cell phone has a statutory argument worth raising. Second, class recovery is limited. Under § 6-1-113(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.” The $500 floor doesn’t carry over to a class.
State enforcement is a different scale. The Attorney General or a district attorney may seek civil penalties of “not more than twenty thousand dollars for each such violation” under § 6-1-112, and up to $50,000 per violation involving an elderly person. But § 6-1-906(1) provides, “No state enforcement action under this part 9 may be brought against a person or entity for fewer than three violations per month.”
The federal statute usually drives the larger number. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), a person who received more than one call within 12 months in violation of the federal Do Not Call rules may sue for up to $500 per violation, and a court may increase the award up to $1,500 if the violation was willful or knowing. Federal class actions aren’t subject to Colorado’s class limit, and the federal rules in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 carry their own safe harbor for written procedures. A business’s Do Not Call defense for Colorado calls usually rests on the same records under both statutes, and the federal safe harbor is covered in the post on internal do-not-call policies.
Steps to take when a Colorado no-call claim arrives
- Put a litigation hold on the call and text logs, dialer and SMS platform data, and consent or inquiry records for every Colorado number in the claim.
- Pull the internal do-not-call list and the opt-out history for those numbers, with dates.
- Gather the quarterly list downloads with their dates, the no-call registration with the designated agent, and any Attorney General registration or the basis for an exclusion.
- Collect the written telemarketing procedures as they stood on the call dates, the vendor and lead-source contracts, the scripts, and any recorded messages.
- Have a lawyer review the claim before anyone responds, contacts the caller, or offers money to settle.
Questions about Colorado telemarketing law
Does Colorado’s no-call law apply to text messages?
Yes. The statute’s definition of a telephone solicitation expressly includes text messaging sent to encourage a purchase, rental, or investment, whether it comes from a live operator, automated equipment, or other means. A marketing text to a Colorado number on the list is treated the same as a sales call, and the same exemptions for permission and existing relationships apply.
Can a consumer sue in small claims court over a Colorado no-call violation?
Yes, and some do. The plaintiff in Holcomb started in the small claims division of a county court. Small claims cases move fast and limit formal discovery, so the company’s registration records and written procedures need to be ready early. The post on defending TCPA claims in small claims court covers the federal side of that setting.
Did Colorado change its no-call law in 2026?
Only in wording, so far. House Bill 26-1426, a Department of Law bill approved June 2, 2026, rewrites parts of the Consumer Protection Act and edits two no-call sections. It takes effect August 12, 2026, absent a referendum petition. The no-call changes are stylistic, and the prohibitions, registration duties, and defenses described here stay the same.
Defending a Colorado no-call claim
If your company is accused of calling or texting Colorado numbers on the no-call list, the quarterly list downloads and the written procedures in place on the call dates usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving calls to numbers on state no-call lists. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The state law sources are the Colorado No-Call List Act, C.R.S. §§ 6-1-901 to 6-1-908, the commercial telephone seller provisions at §§ 6-1-301 to 6-1-305, and the Consumer Protection Act remedies at §§ 6-1-112 and 6-1-113, all in Title 6 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The 2026 amendments are in House Bill 26-1426. The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of Southern Colorado, 172 P.3d 888 (Colo. 2007). The federal law is 47 U.S.C. § 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 24, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.