A Colorado legislator has dropped a defamation lawsuit he filed against two women who accused him of sexual harassment.

Rep. Ron Weinberg and the two women, Jacqueline Anderson and Heather Booth, agreed to end the suit in a Friday joint filing that was submitted a week before all three parties were set to testify in court. The dismissal was approved by a judge later that day.

No settlement or confidentiality agreements were part of the joint filing, Anderson said in an interview.

A Loveland Republican, Weinberg filed the suit in August, weeks after Anderson and Booth publicly accused him of making sexual comments to them at public events in 2021 and 2022, when he was the chair of the Larimer County Republican Party but before he entered the legislature. Weinberg denied the allegations and sued both women for libel and slander.

The women, in turn, denied that their statements were false, and they moved to dismiss the lawsuit under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Anti-SLAPP laws are generally used to prevent people from using expensive defamation suits to target or punish others for their speech. The laws require that the person filing the lawsuit demonstrate that they’re reasonably likely to win the case; otherwise, the case can be dismissed, and the defendants may receive attorneys’ fees.

The case was set for a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motions this Friday. Weinberg, Anderson and Booth had all indicated that they would testify, along with several other people who’d filed affidavits seeking to support or undercut the women’s harassment allegations.

Witnesses in the case included the president of the Leadership Program of the Rockies, which ran the events at which Weinberg allegedly made the comments, as well as Amy Parks, who had been challenging Weinberg for his Loveland-based seat in this year’s Republican primary until Weinberg announced that he would not run for reelection. Rep. Brandi Bradley, a Republican lawmaker who filed a complaint against Weinberg last summer, was also on Booth’s potential witness list.

On Monday, Weinberg told The Denver Post that he decided to drop the case because he didn’t believe he would get the chance to defend himself in court. He provided an email from one of the women’s attorneys, who noted a separate active investigation into Weinberg’s campaign spending and that Weinberg’s reputation would likely suffer further if the anti-SLAPP hearing took place.

Colorado Democrats unveiled a trio of proposals Monday aimed at wrenching down rising prices that they blamed on corporate greed — and at forestalling newer attempts at varying pricing for different customers.

The proposals include a measure that would require price transparency for what might be considered “captive consumers,” including at sporting events or airports. Another would prohibit wholesalers from giving preferential pricing to large groups. And a third would ban companies from using consumers’ personal data to set prices or wages.

“Affordability isn’t this abstract concept. Everyone has experienced the $20 beer at a Nuggets game, the $10 water at the airport or the $80 Tylenol at the emergency room,” state Rep. Yara Zokaie, a Fort Collins Democrat, said during a news conference at the state Capitol. “When people are forced to pay more, simply because they’re trapped, that isn’t the free market. It’s exploitation.”

Only the proposal to require more price transparency has been formally introduced, as House Bill 1012. Supporters expect the other measures to be introduced in the coming weeks.

Democrats framed the proposals as necessary to preserve the free market against large monopolies that have undue power to set prices — including by harvesting user data — and to force out competition.

The proposal is already facing stiff opposition from business groups. Three dozen lobbyists, including those representing the Colorado Hospital Association, the Colorado Bankers Association and various chambers of commerce, have registered outright opposition. Uber and DoorDash, whose delivery services would also be affected by the bill, have registered amend positions, signalling they will seek changes.

“The Colorado Chamber opposes the bill due to feedback from our members that it’s overreaching, creating new operational and legal costs for businesses across multiple industries statewide, with little benefit to consumers,” said Meghan Dollar, the senior vice president of governmental affairs for the Colorado Chamber of Commerce.”

Gov. Jared Polis has underscored the need for affordability but also regularly voices business-oriented concerns, making him a wild card. Spokeswoman Shelby Wieman said Monday that he “is generally skeptical of these types of policies because they are not consistent with the laws of economics,” and he will monitor its progress.

The price transparency bill builds off a 2025 law passed by legislators against so-called junk fees charged by landlords. This iteration would prohibit businesses from charging “unreasonably excessive prices to a captive consumer.” Think sports fans whose only food options at a game are at stands all operated by the same big concessionaire.

The bill would also require businesses that sell delivery goods, such as grocery delivery providers or DoorDash, to list a comparison of the delivery price versus the regular price if the goods were to be bought in-person at the store.

“Our economy is failing working people because corporations have been allowed to extract, overcharge and consolidate power with no real accountability,” Zokaie said. “They have found new and unique ways to squeeze every last cent from working people. Today, we are drawing a hard line against that system.”

The anti-price gouging measure, as written, would declare it an unfair or deceptive trade practice if a business charges a higher price than the average for a similar good or service within the same county. So that $20 beer, if it costs half that at a bar down the street, might run afoul of the proposed law unless the seller can show the price is not unreasonably excessive.

The bill would task the state’s attorney general with establishing the guidelines to determine unreasonably excessive prices for captive consumers, such as at airports, hospitals, sporting events, large festivals or in correctional facilities.

Lawmakers say the onus for preventing pricing abuses is on the state since the Trump administration has largely retreated from business regulations and has sought to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB.

The federal agency was tasked with creating and enforcing rules to protect consumers from abusive practices across a range of financial institutions. Some Republicans have assailed the agency as overregulating industry. President Donald Trump said early in his second term that the bureau was “set up to destroy people.”

Sen. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat, said the bills would rely on the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for enforcement, using powers from the state Consumer Protection Act.

“Historically, you’ve had maybe the prospect of state and federal enforcement,” Weissman said. “But as we live now, there isn’t a functional CFPB anymore. It’s been put through the wood chipper. It’s mulch now. So state enforcement through the Colorado attorney general will be important.”

The bill that would restrict the use of consumer data to set prices and wages also steps into regulations on algorithmic decision-making, which is part of the thrust of lawmakers’ long-debated, and still in flux, regulations on artificial intelligence.

Weissman said this bill was designed to stand alone.

“We are playing against a supercomputer when we walk into a grocery store,” said Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat. “We are playing against a supercomputer when we go to buy clothes.”

KRDO NewsChannel 13 is committed to providing a forum for civil and constructive conversation.

Please keep your comments respectful and relevant. You can review our Community Guidelines by clicking here

If you would like to share a story idea, please submit it here.