A federal judge dismissed a challenge on Friday to a portion of Colorado law that prohibits certain information from being included in consumer reports, in what seemed to be a conflict with federal law.

Congress originally enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act in 1970, with the goal of requiring consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures for collecting information for use by insurance companies, employers, landlords, and others.

Among other things, the law prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including civil lawsuits and arrest records that are generally more than seven years old. Criminal convictions from any time can be included.

Finally, the law bars states from enacting their own prohibitions on topics regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In January 2025, the Professional Background Screening Association sued Attorney General Phil Weiser. The organization argued that two provisions of the Colorado Consumer Credit Reporting Act conflict with their federal counterpart:

• A 1997 requirement that prohibits the inclusion of convictions more than seven years old
• A 2022 prohibition on the reporting of criminal records that resulted in no conviction

“Colorado’s attempt to override Congress’s careful decision-making regarding the contents of consumer reports threatens the national uniformity in consumer reporting regulation Congress has endeavored to ensure,” wrote attorney Justin D. Balser. “Colorado has forced consumer reporting agencies to undertake the burden of developing, implementing, and continuing to maintain regulatory compliance procedures for consumer reports issued in Colorado that are separate and distinct from the procedures used for reports issued elsewhere.”

Weiser moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the trade association had not identified any member company that would be imminently harmed by the provisions, including one that had existed for nearly 30 years. Further, Weiser noted the state attorney general plays no role in enforcing the challenged requirements.

“The CCRA does not confer on the Attorney General enforcement authority over its restrictions on consumer report contents. Instead, the CCRA provides for private enforcement,” wrote Assistant Solicitor General Talia Kraemer. “The Complaint does not identify any instance in which the Attorney General or any other entity or individual has enforced, or threatened to enforce, those provisions against PBSA’s members over the years in which they have been in effect.”

In a March 20 order, U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with Weiser.

“The CCRA gives consumers the right to bring a private action to enforce the CCRA. Nothing in the CCRA expressly grants the Attorney General the authority to enforce its provisions,” he wrote.

Although the background screeners’ association attached press releases in which Weiser said that private complaints “inform our consumer protection work,” Brimmer wrote that such comments from the attorney general did not show an obligation to enforce the specific provisions being challenged.

“A press release is not a binding interpretation of the law,” Brimmer wrote.

The case is Professional Background Screening Association v. Weiser.