By Alyssa Miller-Hurley

When a Colorado family decides to bring a new puppy into their home, they deserve a process guided by transparency and legal protection, not one that forces them into the “wild west” of the unregulated internet. As the legislature considers House Bill 26-1011, lawmakers should look beyond the bill’s intent and grapple with its likely outcomes.

Bans on pet stores selling dogs are often promoted as a way to curb “puppy mills.” In reality, these policies have the opposite effect. 

When regulated, transparent options are eliminated, demand does not disappear — it simply moves into unregulated spaces where abuse, fraud and deception are far more difficult to detect or stop. “Puppy prohibition” doesn’t fix the market; it hands the keys to those who operate in the shadows, including scammers and “puppy mills.”

Too often, the conversation blurs an important distinction. Irresponsible, substandard breeding operations are not the same as licensed, regulated pet breeders and retail shops.  

In Colorado, pet stores are subject to the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA), which mandates inspections, health disclosures, and sourcing requirements designed to protect both animals and consumers. Shady importers and breeders, by contrast, operate outside the law by design. They avoid oversight, inspections, and accountability altogether.

Those bad actors should be penalized aggressively, and Colorado has an opportunity to strengthen enforcement tools as PACFA comes up for sunset review. Eliminating regulated pet stores will not end irresponsible breeding; it removes one of the few places where state-level oversight and consumer protections actually exist.

When families cannot find a puppy through a local, regulated business, they do not stop looking. They turn to the internet, where sellers can operate anonymously and accountability is limited. For many, this is where the “puppy mill pipeline” truly begins. Social media platforms and online marketplaces have increasingly become the “wild west” of the pet industry. The Better Business Bureau has repeatedly warned about the rise in online pet scams, in which victims lose thousands of dollars to anonymous sellers offering sick animals or, in many cases, no pet at all. On TikTok, you’ll find no shortage of people selling puppies. 

These transactions often leave families with no recourse and animals with no safeguards. Unlike a Colorado pet store, which is required by state law to provide health certifications and consumer “lemon law” protections, an anonymous online seller offers no such guarantees. When a puppy purchased online becomes ill, the family is often left with mounting vet bills and a broken heart, with the seller disappearing into the digital ether.

Experience from other states also underscores this concern. After California enacted a similar ban, investigations found regulated retailers were not replaced by shelter adoptions. Instead, “a network of resellers — including ex-cons and schemers — replaced pet stores as middlemen,” according to a L.A. Times investigation. 

Colorado should learn from these consequences rather than repeating them.

Colorado’s existing regulatory framework is among the strongest in the nation. The state already has the authority to regulate breeding, transportation, veterinary care and sales. It has the enforcement tools to address violations when they occur. A blanket ban undermines those systems instead of strengthening them.

Visibility matters. Oversight protects both animals and families. When pet sales are pushed into unregulated markets, that oversight disappears. Authorities lose the ability to inspect facilities, trace disease outbreaks, and hold bad actors accountable. Effective animal welfare policy requires greater transparency and more targeted enforcement, not the removal of the most visible part of the industry. 

HB 26-1011 would move Colorado in the wrong direction by increasing consumer risk while reducing oversight and protections for animals. Colorado can continue to lead on animal welfare without adopting policies that weaken oversight and increase risk. Protecting animals and consumers requires strong regulation and transparency — not a policy of prohibition that leaves families vulnerable and rewards those who operate in the dark.

Alyssa Miller-Hurley is vice president of government affairs at the Pet Advocacy Network.