Colorado’s new children’s privacy laws, effective October 1, 2025, amend the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) through Senate Bill 24-041 (SB 41) to enhance protections for minors’ online data. These amendments signal a broader trend in U.S. state-level regulation aimed at safeguarding children’s privacy in the digital age, potentially shaping the future of national online regulation. Below is an analysis of the key provisions, their implications, and how they reflect emerging trends in U.S. privacy law, based on available information.
Key Provisions of Colorado’s SB 41
- Expanded Scope and Applicability:
- The law applies to any entity (data controller) conducting business in Colorado or targeting Colorado residents with online services, products, or features, regardless of revenue or data volume thresholds. This is broader than the original CPA, which only applied to entities processing data of 100,000+ consumers or deriving revenue from selling data of 25,000+ consumers.
- It covers minors under 18, expanding protections beyond the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which only applies to children under 13.
- Duty of Reasonable Care:
- Controllers must exercise reasonable care to avoid “heightened risk of harm” to minors, defined as risks like unfair treatment, financial/physical/reputational injury, unauthorized data disclosure, or intrusive privacy violations.
- This duty requires proactive measures to mitigate risks from online services, such as avoiding manipulative design features (e.g., “dark patterns”) that encourage excessive use by minors.
- Consent Requirements:
- Without consent from a minor (or a parent/guardian for those under 13), controllers are prohibited from:
- Processing minors’ data for targeted advertising, data sales, or profiling that produces significant legal effects.
- Processing data for purposes beyond what was disclosed at collection or retaining it longer than necessary.
- Using system design features to “significantly increase, sustain, or extend” a minor’s engagement (e.g., addictive algorithms or “compulsive” features).
- Compliance with COPPA’s verifiable parental consent satisfies these requirements for children under 13.
- Data Protection Assessments:
- Controllers must conduct and document data protection assessments for services posing a heightened risk of harm to minors. These assessments must be reviewed as needed and can align with assessments required by other laws if similar in scope.
- Geolocation Restrictions:
- Collecting a minor’s precise geolocation data is prohibited unless necessary for the service, retained only briefly, and accompanied by a signal indicating collection (except for ski area operators, a Colorado-specific exemption).
- Precise geolocation is defined as GPS coordinates within a 1,850-foot radius.
- Enforcement:
- The Colorado Attorney General and district attorneys enforce the law, with a 60-day cure period for violations (ending December 31, 2026). There is no private right of action.
- Compliance with SB 41 creates a rebuttable presumption of reasonable care.
Proposed Rules and Clarifications
On July 29, 2025, the Colorado Department of Law issued draft rules to implement SB 41, open for public comment until September 5, 2025, with a hearing on September 10, 2025. Key clarifications include:
- “Willful Disregard” Standard: Controllers may be deemed in “willful disregard” of a consumer’s minor status based on profile information (e.g., birth date, grade level), credible parental reports, or services directed at minors (assessed by content, language, or incentives appealing to minors).
- Compulsive Features: Features are not considered compulsive if disabled by default (requiring opt-in consent), respond to specific user requests, or include countervailing measures like time limits.
- No Mandatory Age Verification: The rules explicitly state that age verification or age-gating is not required, though such systems may help limit protections to minors only.
Implications for Businesses
- Broader Compliance Burden: Unlike the original CPA, SB 41 applies to all entities targeting Colorado residents, including small businesses, increasing compliance costs for those offering online services to minors.
- Design and Operational Changes: Companies must assess and modify features that could encourage excessive use (e.g., autoplay, infinite scroll) and implement safeguards for geolocation data and direct messaging to prevent adult-minor interactions.
- Data Minimization: Restrictions on data retention and secondary uses (e.g., targeted ads) require robust data governance to ensure compliance.
- Uncertainty in Enforcement: The “willful disregard” standard introduces ambiguity, as businesses may need to infer minor status without definitive age verification, potentially leading to over-compliance (treating all users as minors).
Foreshadowing U.S. Online Regulation
Colorado’s SB 41 aligns with a growing state-level trend to strengthen children’s online privacy protections, reflecting dissatisfaction with the federal COPPA framework (last amended June 23, 2025) and the lack of comprehensive national privacy legislation. Key ways it foreshadows future U.S. regulation include:
- Expanding the Definition of “Minor”:
- States like Colorado, Connecticut, and New York are extending protections to teens up to 18, recognizing their vulnerability to data exploitation and addictive online features. This contrasts with COPPA’s under-13 focus and may pressure federal reforms like the proposed Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) or COPPA 2.0, which aim to cover teens.
- Focus on Addictive Design:
- Colorado’s prohibition on “compulsive” features mirrors laws like New York’s SAFE for Kids Act (June 2024), which bans addictive feeds without parental consent, and Virginia’s time limits (one hour daily by default for minors). This reflects growing concern about algorithmic manipulation and mental health impacts on youth.
- Integration with Comprehensive Privacy Laws:
- Colorado, Virginia, and Connecticut have amended existing privacy frameworks (e.g., CPA, Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act) to include youth-specific protections, creating a model for states to build on baseline privacy laws. This approach is more streamlined than standalone laws like California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC), which faces constitutional scrutiny.
- Geolocation and Biometric Safeguards:
- Restrictions on precise geolocation and biometric data (amended via Colorado’s HB 24-1130, effective July 1, 2025) align with states like California and Utah, emphasizing sensitive data categories. This could influence federal standards, as seen in COPPA’s recent amendments addressing biometric identifiers.
- Patchwork of State Laws:
- With states like California, Maryland, Tennessee, and Utah enacting similar laws, companies face a complex compliance landscape. This fragmentation, described as “unmanageable” for multistate operations, may push Congress toward a federal privacy standard to preempt state laws, though bills like KOSA and COPPA 2.0 remain stalled in the House as of August 2025.
- Global Influence:
- Colorado’s approach draws from frameworks like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the UK’s Online Safety Act, which impose strict duties on platforms to protect minors. The U.S. trend toward age-appropriate design and consent requirements mirrors these global standards, suggesting a convergence in privacy regulation.
Critiques and Challenges
- Compliance Complexity: Businesses, especially small ones, may struggle with varying state requirements, as seen in differences between Colorado’s SB 41 and Virginia’s HB 707 (which exempts small businesses). This patchwork could increase costs and legal risks.
- Constitutional Concerns: Laws like Maryland’s AADC face challenges for potentially violating free speech by requiring age verification or content restrictions, which could affect Colorado’s framework if broadly applied.
- Enforcement Ambiguity: The “willful disregard” standard and lack of mandatory age verification create uncertainty, potentially leading to over-cautious compliance or legal disputes.
- Public Sentiment: Posts on X reflect polarized views, with some praising child protection efforts (e.g., @CorpCounsel) and others warning of overreach, like mandatory age verification threatening online freedom (@wayotworld, @ReclaimTheNetHQ).
Future Outlook
Colorado’s SB 41, alongside similar laws in states like California, Connecticut, and Virginia, signals a shift toward proactive, youth-focused privacy regulation. As states experiment with these frameworks, they may pressure Congress to update COPPA or pass broader laws like KOSA, which proposes duties of care and restrictions on addictive features. However, federal inaction and ongoing litigation (e.g., Utah’s social media laws) suggest that state-level “laboratories” will continue driving U.S. online regulation in the near term. Businesses should prepare for stricter consent, data minimization, and design requirements, potentially adopting age verification to navigate the “willful disregard” standard, while monitoring federal developments for a unified standard.
Sources:
- Colorado General Assembly (leg.colorado.gov)
- Future of Privacy Forum (fpf.org, May 20, 2024)
- Byte Back (bytebacklaw.com, May 17, 2024, August 11, 2025)
- Law.com (August 20, 2025)
- Inside Privacy (August 10, 2024, July 26, 2025)
- Goodwin (goodwinlaw.com, August 8, 2025)
- X posts (@CorpCounsel, @wayotworld, @ReclaimTheNetHQ)