PFTA privacy claims: Is a little-known Colorado statute the new Right to Publicity?

Businesses that disclose personal information on the internet, in data platforms, or in commercial products have long been the target of privacy class actions.

Over the last decade, these actions have primarily been advanced as claims brought under state Right to Publicity Act (RPA) lawsuits, whereby an individual asserts that a website, platform, or product “used” their identity by disclosing some information about them. For example, lawsuits against traditional “people-search” businesses claimed that the partial reveal of an individual’s name and other information was used to “tease” the purchase of subscriptions to the platform.  Over time, right to publicity litigation extended beyond people-search businesses and to online legal directories, background check companies, genetic databases, and lead generation businesses.

More recently, hundreds of civil lawsuits brought under New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, N.J. Stat. § 56:8-166.1, a statute designed to protect members of the New Jersey law enforcement and judicial branch, were used to target an even wider range of businesses, including data analytics companies, political action committees, and email service providers. Daniel’s Law provides covered persons with the right to request that their home address and unpublished home phone number be removed from databases of various companies that may maintain, publish, and/or disclose that information. The first wave of Daniel’s Law litigation is now winding its way through state and federal courts of New Jersey, with challenges to the Law’s constitutionality pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and New Jersey Supreme Court.

Now, nearly 20 new lawsuits have been filed under the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Act (PFTA or Act) in courts throughout the United States in what appears to be the newest iteration of wrongful disclosure of personal information privacy claims.

Emerging claims under Colorado’s Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act

The PFTA is Colorado’s telemarketing law. In many respects, the Act mirrors the federal telephone communication protection act or other state telemarketing laws that regulate telephone solicitations and fraud.

However, in 2005, the Act was amended to make unlawful the “list[ing]” of a cellular telephone number in a directory for a commercial purpose without an individual’s prior consent. Consent under the PFTA may be obtained through written, oral, electronic, or other forms of affirmative agreement.

The Act provides for statutory damages ranging from $300 to $500 for a first violation, and $500 to $1,000 for each subsequent violation, in addition to court costs and attorneys’ fees. Despite its longstanding presence on the books, the PFTA has seen little litigation and no interpretative case law, until now.

Several plaintiffs’ firms have filed putative class actions against companies for their allegedly unlawful listing of individuals’ cell phone numbers without their consent. As with the right to publicity claims, the PFTA complaints typically challenge business models in which companies display “teaser” information, such as a partial or redacted phone number, in response to user searches or within a database, with the option to purchase more detailed information.

Plaintiffs contend that these practices constitute an impermissible “listing” of cell phone numbers in a “directory” for a commercial purpose, in violation of the PFTA.

The first wave of PFTA complaints was filed in the District Court of Colorado, but those actions were voluntarily dismissed, and some of them were refiled in other jurisdictions. At least one attempt to transfer a PFTA case back to the District Court of Colorado has been successful, with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently holding that the Colorado-only class action filed under a novel Colorado law should be decided by the courts of Colorado:

“However, the Court finds that the familiarity with applicable law and local interest in controversy factors both strongly favor transfer to the District of Colorado. At core, this is a Colorado controversy involving a Colorado-only class brought under a novel Colorado law. See Rabinowitz v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 14-CV-00801-JCS, 2014 WL 5422576, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) (“a fundamental principle underpinning the § 1404(a) analysis is that litigation should proceed in that place where the case finds its center of gravity”) (internal quotations omitted).” Clark v. Instant Checkmate LLC et al, 3:25-cv-01474, Dkt. 29 (S.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025).

Other PFTA cases remain in the early procedural stages with no substantive rulings to date. As with RPA and Daniel’s Law litigation, early motions to dismiss PFTA complaints have challenged the Act’s constitutionality, arguing that the Act is a content-based regulation that violates First Amendment principles. Questions also exist as to whether the PFTA, which is part of Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, even allows for class action filings.

Key compliance considerations

With this developing litigation landscape, companies that collect, display, or monetize consumer data, particularly cellular telephone numbers, should proactively evaluate their exposure under the PFTA. Thus, it is important to consider the following risk mitigation strategies:

• Verify and document consent: Since the statute exempts listings based on consent, ensure that cell phone data sources are reliable, and maintain clear records of how and when consent was obtained.
• Implement robust opt-out mechanisms: Especially where individual consent is not obtained, ensure users can easily request removal of their personal information from databases and directories.
• Evaluate jurisdictional exposure: Assess whether you can determine if a given number belongs to a Colorado resident, to inform compliance strategy, or whether suppression or Colorado residents’ cell phones and/or Colorado cellphone numbers is required.

The PFTA appears to be a new tool in the plaintiffs’ bar privacy litigation toolshed. Given the potential for significant statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, companies should assess their practices, particularly those involving data display or sales, to reduce litigation risk.

Clark Hill will continue to monitor the PFTA litigation and provide additional updates as these lawsuits raise serious questions about the assignment of rights and the constitutionality of the law.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.