Colorado

The warning-notification requirement (set to operate 2026-01-01) was preliminarily enjoined 2025-11-06 in NetChoice v. Weiser (D. Colo., Senior Judge William J. Martínez) as compelled speech under the First Amendment. Colorado appealed to the Tenth Circuit in December 2025 (opening brief filed 2026-05-11); the injunction holds while the case is resolved.

Thin, litigation-focused entry: the value here is the enforcement posture, not obligation depth. The bill page confirms it was signed 2024-06-06 with an August 2024 general effective date, but the operative warning-notification duty was scheduled for 2026-01-01 and was preliminarily enjoined 2025-11-06 before it could operate (the PI order is dated Nov 6; press coverage the file previously relied on ran Nov 7). Enforcement is by the Attorney General under Colorado consumer-protection law (per the litigation reporting); the covered-platform definition and exact trigger thresholds are drawn from the bill summary and press coverage, not a primary-text pass. Penalties omitted rather than guessed; the single usage-warning obligation is authored from those secondary descriptions, hence its pending citation pin. Distinct from co-sb24-041 (Colorado's in-force children's-data amendments to the Colorado Privacy Act).

Obligations (1)

Litigation history

1. 2025-08
   NetChoice filed suit against Attorney General Phil Weiser challenging the HB 24-1136 warning-notification requirement on First Amendment (compelled-speech) grounds
   → Enforcement of the challenged provision contested; provision was not yet operative (operative date 2026-01-01) source ↗
2. 2025-11-06
   U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Senior Judge William J. Martínez) granted a preliminary injunction, finding NetChoice substantially likely to succeed on its claim that compelling platforms to display the state's warning message is unconstitutional
   → The warning-notification provision is unenforceable; it did not take effect on 2026-01-01 source ↗
3. 2025-12
   Attorney General Phil Weiser appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
   → No change; the warning-notification provision remains enjoined while the appeal is pending source ↗
4. 2026-05-11
   Colorado filed its opening brief in the Tenth Circuit appeal of the preliminary injunction
   → No change; the warning-notification provision remains enjoined pending the appeal source ↗

Cross-state comparisons

• similarny-safe-for-kids (New York): Both target minors' engagement patterns and use time-of-day triggers (New York restricts nighttime notifications to minors; Colorado compels a periodic warning notification), but they run in opposite directions (one suppresses platform notifications, the other compels a state-scripted one), which is why the compelled-speech theory bit in Colorado.
• similarco-sb24-041 (Colorado): Same state, same session, both minor-safety measures, but different fates and mechanisms: SB 24-041 (data duties) is in force, while HB 24-1136 (compelled warning notifications) is preliminarily enjoined on First Amendment grounds.

Signed 2024-05-31; the children's-data amendments to the Colorado Privacy Act took effect 2025-10-01. No known court challenge to SB 24-041 as of 2026-07-04 (distinct from Colorado's separate HB 24-1136 social-media warning-label law, which was preliminarily enjoined).

Primary bill page verified (signed 2024-05-31, effective 2025-10-01, no private right of action, AG/DA enforcement). Obligation decomposition is drawn from the bill summary and corroborating law-firm analyses (Lowenstein Sandler, Wilson Sonsini, Hunton); statutory section pins into C.R.S. § 6-1-1308.5 are approximate and need a line-by-line pass. The Colorado Department of Law adopted CPA rule amendments addressing minors' data; those rules are not decomposed here. Penalty specifics for the minor provisions omitted rather than guessed.

Obligations (2)

Cross-state comparisons

• similarct-sb3 (Connecticut): Close cousin: both graft a minor-safety regime onto a comprehensive state privacy act, using an actual-knowledge/willful-disregard trigger, a reasonable-care duty against heightened risk of harm, consent-gated limits on targeted advertising/sale/profiling, and a bar on system-design features that extend minors' use.
• similarne-lb504 (Nebraska): Both restrict engagement-maximizing design features and impose data-minimization/assessment duties for minors, though Nebraska's LB 504 is a standalone Age-Appropriate Design Code while Colorado's duties are amendments to its comprehensive privacy act.
• similarmd-kids-code (Maryland): Overlapping duty-of-care and data-protection-assessment concepts for minors, but Maryland's Kids Code is a standalone design code with CCPA-style coverage thresholds, whereas Colorado's minor duties drop the base act's thresholds and hinge on actual knowledge/willful disregard.