USA – COLORADO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Mike Kilgarriff and Catherine Warren, Buchalter LLP
Colorado’s importance in this area lies in the combi - nation of the two episodes: (i) The 2020 Assurance of Discontinuance addressed the internal structure of bank–fintech programmes, and (ii) the DIDMCA litigation addresses the outer boundary of federal pre-emption on which many interstate programmes depend. Together, they show a state willing to test both the design of bank–partnership lending and the legal assumptions that support it. State Attorney General enforcement remains central to the practical regulation of fintech If the artificial intelligence statute and the DIDMCA litigation show Colorado moving upstream toward decision systems and legal architecture, the state’s consumer credit machinery shows how that analysis returns to ground level. The Colorado Attorney Gen - eral’s published guidance on the Uniform Consumer Credit Code states that the Code regulates the terms and conditions of consumer credit in the state, sets maximum rates and charges, requires disclosure of the cost of credit, and provides remedies for con - sumers on default. With limited exceptions for first- mortgage residential acquisition and refinance loans, most consumer credit transactions remain subject to that regime. Through the Administrator of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, the Attorney General inves- tigates complaints, licenses non-bank lenders, and may take disciplinary or legal action when a creditor violates the law. That framework matters because it allows Colorado to move quickly from the market language surrounding a product to its economic and legal substance. A com - pany may describe an offering in terms of software, embedded functionality, speed, or customer experi - ence. Colorado’s consumer credit regime invites a different set of questions. Does the product, in sub - stance, extend consumer credit? Is a licence required? Are the charges imposed authorised by law? Are the disclosures adequate? Does the structure function to evade rate or fee limits? These questions are not relics displaced by technology. In Colorado, these concepts remain the legal tools through which newer products are analysed and, where necessary, constrained. Colorado’s participation in the recent multi-state “buy now, pay later” investigation offers a concrete example
of how that posture operates in practice. On 1 Decem - ber 2025, Colorado joined Connecticut, California, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Wisconsin in sending letters to the six largest buy now, pay later providers seeking detailed information about pric - ing and repayment structures, consumer contracts, user agreements, and disclosures. The inquiry was designed to assess whether those products comply with consumer-protection laws and whether they may be placing consumers at financial risk. The letters themselves reveal the character of the inquiry. They ask about billing disputes, customer-ser - vice channels, ability-to-repay procedures, accepted payment devices, credit reporting, delinquencies and defaults, merchant relationships, checkout disclo - sures, and efforts to comply with Subpart B of the Truth in Lending Act. What emerges is not a single doctrinal challenge but a style of supervision: con - crete, operational, and attentive to how a product is actually structured and experienced. That is often how state regulation develops before a comprehensive federal framework arrives. Colorado’s role in that inquiry also reinforces a larger point running through this article. The state’s impor - tance lies not only in statutes and appellate decisions, but also in its willingness to use familiar supervisory tools to press on newer products. That is one reason state enforcement remains so important in fintech. The practical boundaries of a market are often shaped first through investigations, information requests, and negotiated outcomes rather than through fully matured federal rules. Conclusion Colorado’s recent fintech developments matter because they reveal a regulatory pattern that is likely to become more familiar elsewhere. The state is not relying on a single master theory of fintech regula - tion. It is proceeding by accumulation: governance rules for high-risk decision systems, renewed pres - sure on the assumptions underlying interstate lending, and enforcement tools flexible enough to be applied to products that are technologically new but legally familiar.
997 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook