Key Takeaways
- Governor Jared Polis consistently vetoed or threatened to veto technology‑related bills that posed significant legal risk, threatened constitutional rights, or could create unintended economic consequences.
- Bills that imposed narrow, procedural requirements on platforms (e.g., 72‑hour warrant response, age‑based data sharing) were more likely to be signed, while those seeking sweeping mandates or new fees often failed.
- Polis showed willingness to allow modest AI safeguards that protect consumers without stifling innovation, but rejected measures he viewed as overbroad or legally vulnerable.
- The governor’s veto letters provide a usable framework for the next administration: prioritize limited‑scope, legally sound regulations and avoid policies that invite litigation, chill speech, or impose unclear costs on businesses and consumers.
Overview of the 2025 Legislative Session
During the 2025 session Colorado lawmakers introduced and debated more technology‑focused bills than in any previous year. Governor Jared Polis, in his eighth year in office, adopted a cautious approach, signing only those measures that minimized legal exposure and avoided unintended side‑effects. His veto letters from that year reveal a clear pattern: proposals that threatened civil liberties, invited lawsuits against the state, or risked hindering innovation were routinely rejected, while narrower, procedural safeguards tended to gain his approval. Because Polis is term‑limited and will leave office in January 2026, his decisions may serve as a precedent for the incoming governor, who will likely confront similar—or evolved—issues concerning online child safety, artificial intelligence, gaming fees, and emerging autonomous‑vehicle technologies.
Requiring Action – But Not Judge/Jury Power – From Technology Platforms
One of the earliest bills Polis signed was Senate Bill 11, which obliges large social‑media companies to respond to law‑enforcement warrants within 72 hours and to publish clear contact information for such requests on their sites. The measure was a revised version of a 2025 bill that Polis had vetoed because it also demanded removal of flagged profiles within 24 hours—a requirement he argued could infringe on civil rights and lead to over‑cautious takedowns of protected speech. By limiting the obligation to a timely response without granting platforms adjudicatory authority, SB 11 struck a balance that satisfied law‑enforcement needs while preserving First Amendment protections.
Age‑Based Data Sharing for App Developers
Polis also approved Senate Bill 51, which compels computer‑system operators to gather a primary user’s age and transmit only age‑bracket information to application developers. The exact age remains private, allowing apps to block children from adult‑only content without exposing personal data. This approach addresses concerns about under‑age access while respecting privacy statutes, illustrating the governor’s preference for regulations that achieve safety goals through minimal, anonymized data sharing.
Trust‑Fund Requirement for Minor Creators
House Bill 1058, another signed measure, places the financial responsibility on adult creators of revenue‑generating online content. It mandates that a portion of earnings derived from minors who appear in the content be set aside in trust funds for those young performers. By shifting compliance from platforms to creators, the bill avoids imposing broad operational burdens on social‑media companies while still providing a safeguard for child participants in monetized media.
Rejection of a 24‑Hour Warrant‑Response Mandate
In contrast, Polis vetoed House Bill 1255, which sought to shorten the warrant‑response window to 24 hours and required platforms to report within the same timeframe any posts containing specific or imminent threats that violated their own policies. The governor’s May 28 veto letter warned that the bill’s vague definition of “specific or imminent threats” could compel companies to remove protected speech as a precaution, thereby chilling First Amendment rights. He also noted that the Fourth Amendment generally demands more than a single policy violation before justifying law‑enforcement searches, reinforcing his concern that the bill risked unconstitutional overreach.
Opposition to New Fees on Video‑Game Purchases
Polis similarly rejected House Bill 1418, which proposed a 5 % surcharge on in‑game purchases to fund youth mental‑health services. He argued that the fee lacked a sufficient nexus between payers and beneficiaries, as many adult gamers would pay without benefiting, and most children who do not use the targeted services would still bear the cost. In his veto letter, he cautioned that the measure could expose Colorado to Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights lawsuits and jeopardize the stability of the funded programs, concluding that the legal and fiscal risks outweighed the intended public‑health benefits.
Swipe‑Fee Regulation Deemed Too Risky
Senate Bill 134, which aimed to prohibit credit‑card companies from charging swipe fees on sales taxes (potentially saving retailers $217 million annually), also met a veto. Polis noted that banks and credit‑card issuers warned the bill was likely pre‑empted by federal law, and he referenced an ongoing Illinois lawsuit involving a similar statute. His June 3 veto letter emphasized that the bill presented “too much legal risk” for Colorado’s business environment, with limited upside for small businesses, making it imprudent to sign.
Surveillance‑Data Pricing Ban Seen as Harmful to Consumers
House Bill 1210, which would have barred businesses from using surveillance data to set individualized prices or wages, was likewise rejected. Polis agreed with critics that the ban could eliminate many common discounts and loyalty programs that rely on purchase‑history tracking, ultimately costing consumers money. In his veto letter, he wrote that the state should “be championing, not deterring, opportunities for Coloradans to save money,” highlighting his belief that overly restrictive data‑use rules could backfire on the very consumers they aim to protect.
Autonomous‑Vehicle Guardrails Viewed as Innovation Barriers
Polis vetoed House Bill 1286, which would have required a licensed commercial truck driver to be present in the cab of any vehicle equipped with automated driving systems. Although proponents framed the measure as a public‑safety safeguard and a job‑protection tool, the governor argued that imposing such a requirement could stunt innovation in a sector Colorado is actively cultivating to reduce crashes. His reasoning echoed a prior veto of a nearly identical bill, reinforcing his stance that premature, prescriptive rules on emerging technologies risk hindering progress.
Failed Attempts to Expand Repair Rights and Age‑Verification for Adult Content
Legislators also saw two initiatives die in committee. Senate Bill 90, which would have exempted critical infrastructure (power grids, financial networks) from a 2024 right‑to‑repair law, was blocked after computer‑repair industry officials warned it could create repair monopolies for large firms. Similarly, House Concurrent Resolution 1002—seeking to ask voters to mandate age‑verification tools on pornographic websites—was killed by critics who deemed the proposed definitions of pornography overly broad and inappropriate for inclusion in the state constitution.
Targeted AI Safeguards Found Favor
Artificial intelligence emerged as the one domain where Polis appeared receptive to modest guardrails. He signed Senate Bill 189, which loosened certain provisions of a 2024 AI law that stakeholders deemed overly burdensome, thereby encouraging broader AI adoption. At the same time, he approved measures that addressed specific risks: HB 1195 limits AI’s role in psychotherapy to administrative tasks and bars its use as the sole therapeutic provider; HB 1139 mandates human review of any AI‑driven denial of health‑care benefits and prohibits reimbursement for AI‑conducted psychotherapy; HB 1263 requires chatbot developers to disclose AI identity, implement suicide‑ideation response protocols, and endeavor to shield minors from sexual exploitation. Although parental safety groups argued the chatbot bill fell short, its passage demonstrated Polis’s willingness to accept targeted, transparent AI regulations that protect users without imposing sweeping constraints on developers.
A Pragmatic Framework for Future Tech Regulation
Collectively, Polis’s actions throughout the 2025 session reveal a decision‑making heuristic: he favored bills that presented low legal risk, respected constitutional freedoms, avoided unclear financial burdens, and promoted innovation rather than impeding it. Measures that sought expansive mandates, ambiguous triggers, or novel fees were more likely to draw vetoes, while narrowly tailored procedural requirements—such as timely law‑enforcement cooperation, age‑bracket data sharing, and focused AI safeguards—received his endorsement. As Colorado prepares for a new governor in 2026, this track record offers a usable template: prioritize legally sound, limited‑scope interventions that address genuine harms without inviting litigation, chilling speech, or destabilizing markets, thereby fostering a regulatory environment that balances public safety with technological advancement.