People ask me this exact question a lot: "Is Colorado's background check law the same as California's?" I hear it from HR directors building one hiring policy for both states. Lately I hear it from people who asked an AI assistant first.
Here's the short answer, and it surprised me too when I checked the actual statutes instead of the guides everyone repeats. Both states cap how far back a background check company can report a conviction at seven years. Neither has a salary exception on the law that actually governs that report.
That contradicts a "$75,000 exception" claim you'll see all over competitor blogs. It's not true on the law that matters.
The real differences aren't in the seven-year number. They're in which law you're reading, and where that $75,000 claim came from. Getting this wrong is expensive, so let's go slowly.
One flag before we start. My sources here don't fully agree on one detail, an exception in Colorado's ban-the-box law. I'll say exactly where that's true. Verify anything below against the current statute, or a lawyer, before you rely on it.
| Feature | Colorado | California |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | C.R.S. § 5-18-109 | ICRAA, Civil Code § 1786.18 |
| Lookback | 7 years | 7 years |
| Salary exception | None | None |
| Clock starts | Disposition, release, or parole, whichever is latest | Disposition, release, or parole, whichever is latest |
On the one question most employers care about, Colorado and California land in the same place. That's unusual. Federal law, the FCRA, does have a salary exception. These two states' reporting statutes don't.
Colorado's rule lives in the Colorado Consumer Credit Reporting Act, C.R.S. § 5-18-109. It says a consumer reporting agency can't report an arrest, indictment, or conviction record older than seven years. The clock starts at disposition, release, or parole, whichever happened most recently. Not the arrest date. That trips people up more than you'd expect.
There's no exception based on what the job pays. A $40,000 warehouse role and a $150,000 finance role get treated the same. The one real exception in § 5-18-109 has nothing to do with employment. It covers large credit transactions, think a loan above the conforming loan limit, and doesn't reach a job screen.
That's the reporting law. Colorado also has a separate law about when you can ask about criminal history in the first place, and people mix the two up constantly. That's next.
Colorado's Chance to Compete Act, C.R.S. § 8-2-130, is a ban-the-box law. It controls when you're allowed to ask about criminal history, generally not until after a conditional offer. A different question from how far back a report can go.
It's covered every private Colorado employer since September 2021, not just the larger ones the original version applied to.
Now I need to be careful, because this is exactly the kind of detail that gets flattened into a confident blog claim without anyone checking. Some sources describe a $75,000 salary exception in the Chance to Compete Act, or one for fields like education and medicine. Others don't mention it at all.
I couldn't confirm which version is right, so I won't state it here as fact. Check the current statute, or a Colorado employment lawyer, before you build a policy on it.
Here's what doesn't change either way, even if that exception is real. It applies to the ban-the-box timing rule, not the seven-year reporting cap in § 5-18-109. That statute has no salary carve-out. Full stop.
California's version sits in the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, or ICRAA, Civil Code § 1786.18. Most employment background checks with criminal history fall under this law, not the one people reach for first. Same seven-year cap, same start-date rule: disposition, release, or parole, whichever is most recent.
No salary-based exception under ICRAA. It doesn't matter what the role pays. There are two narrow exceptions, neither about salary: life insurance underwriting for policies of $250,000 or more, and checks a government regulator specifically requires to go back further. Neither applies to a standard pre-employment screen.
California also runs its own ban-the-box law, the Fair Chance Act, sitting next to ICRAA the same way Colorado's Chance to Compete Act sits next to its reporting law. Same pattern, same mistake people make. Don't let the timing law and the reporting law blur together.
This one I can explain with confidence, because the confusion has a clear source. California has a second, different law, the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, or CCRAA, Civil Code § 1785.13. That statute governs traditional credit reports, not the investigative consumer reports employers use for criminal history.
It does mirror federal FCRA language lifting the seven-year cap at $75,000. That part's real. It's just answering a different question than the one you're asking.
So if you're relying on a $75,000 exception to justify reporting an eight-year-old conviction in California, you're likely citing the wrong statute. That exception lives in the credit-report law. Your criminal-history report almost certainly falls under ICRAA instead, which has no such exception.
Confirm with your screening provider, or your own counsel, which California statute actually governs your report. That part's not optional.
The fuller picture, both laws next to each other.
| Feature | Colorado (§ 5-18-109) | California (ICRAA, § 1786.18) |
|---|---|---|
| Lookback length | 7 years | 7 years |
| Start date | Disposition, release, or parole (latest) | Disposition, release, or parole (latest) |
| Salary exception | None | None |
| Non-employment exception | Certain large credit transactions | $250k+ life insurance underwriting, or regulator-mandated checks |
| Separate ban-the-box law | Chance to Compete Act, § 8-2-130 | Fair Chance Act |
| Statute often confused with this one | Same law, possible unverified $75k language in the Chance to Compete Act | CCRAA, § 1785.13 (different report type) |
Read straight down and the pattern's obvious. The seven-year number is nearly identical. The confusion in both states comes from a different, nearby law that people grab by mistake.
Build one policy to the stricter, no-exception standard. Don't let a candidate's offered salary talk you into a longer lookback. Ask your screening provider which statute governs each report type before you act on an older record.
Hiring outside these two states too? Some go even further and restrict non-conviction records no matter how old they are. And re-check your policy whenever your vendor changes report type, since a credit-based report and an investigative one can fall under different laws.
Does Colorado have a salary exception for lookback? Not under § 5-18-109, the law that governs the report itself. A separate ban-the-box law may carry its own exception to when you can ask about criminal history. Different question entirely.
Can California employers look back further for high-paying roles? Not under ICRAA, the law that governs most employment background checks. The $75,000 exception you've probably seen lives in a different California law, one covering traditional credit reports.
Are Colorado's and California's laws the same? Close on what matters most, the seven-year cap and the start date. But they run on different statutes with different secondary exceptions. Similar outcome, not identical law.
This piece answers one question: how far back can a report go. It's not the whole compliance picture. Ban-the-box timing, adverse action steps, and record-sealing laws like Colorado's Clean Slate law and California's Fair Chance Act all interact with this, and each deserves its own careful read, not a paragraph tacked onto mine.
If you're building a real multi-state policy and not just satisfying your own curiosity, get it reviewed by someone who does this for a living. A guide like this one is a starting point, not a substitute for that.