ORS 646.649¹
Late fees on delinquent cable service accounts
  • amount
  • disclosure
  • notice

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Cable service" means:

(A) One-way transmission to subscribers of a video programming service;

(B) Two-way interactive service delivered over a cable system; or

(C) Any communication with subscribers necessary for the selection and use of video programming or interactive services.

(b) "Cable system" means a facility consisting of closed transmission paths and associated signal operation, reception and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service.

(2)(a) A seller of cable service may assess a late fee on delinquent subscriber accounts held by the seller that have an unpaid balance of $10 or more.

(b) A late fee assessed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section shall not exceed five percent of the unpaid balance or $6, whichever is greater.

(3) The seller of cable service shall conspicuously disclose on each statement or invoice the terms under which a late fee may be assessed, including the amount of the fee.

(4) Prior to assessing a late fee under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, the seller shall give written notice to the subscriber. The notice shall conspicuously indicate the amount of the unpaid balance, an address where payment may be made, the date on which the late fee will be imposed and the amount of the late fee. The notice shall be mailed to the subscriber’s last-known billing address as shown in the seller’s records. The notice shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the date on which the late fee will be assessed. The late fee may not be assessed earlier than 27 days after the due date for the unpaid balance. [1999 c.400 §§2,3]

Note: 646.649 (Late fees on delinquent cable service accounts) and 646.651 (Contest and sweepstakes solicitations) were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 646 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

A complaint which alleges in one count that defendants advertised automobile for sale with intent not to sell it as advertised, in a sec­ond count that there was a failure to disclose advertised price coupled with sale at greater amount sufficiently pleads ac­tion under Act. Sanders v. Francis, 277 Or 593, 561 P2d 1003 (1977)

Plaintiff's purchase of truck to carry on business of hauling freight in order to provide family invest­ment and employ­ment for family member did not fall within pro­vi­sions of Act. Searle v. Exley Express, Inc., 278 Or 535, 564 P2d 1054 (1977)

Amend­ment of defini­tion of "trade" and "commerce" to include "advertising, offering or distributing, whether by sale, rental or otherwise, any real estate, goods or services" does not indicate legislative intent to extend applica­tion of Unfair Trade Practices Act to loans and extensions of credit. Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203, 605 P2d 730 (1980)

There is no require­ment that consumer prove all ele­ments of common law fraud in order to recover damages under Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Raudebaugh v. Ac­tion Pest Control, 59 Or App 166, 650 P2d 1006 (1982)

Plaintiff's allega­tions that defendant escrow company represented that plaintiff would receive security interests on notes from sale of their business did not constitute misrepresenta­tions ac­tionable under Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Samuels v. Key Title Co., 63 Or App 627, 665 P2d 362 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

56 OLR 490 (1977); 13 WLJ 455 (1977)

Notes of Decisions

Where users of IUDs brought suit against manufacturer on variety of grounds, claiming damages for infertility, private en­force­­ment pro­vi­sion of Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) does not provide remedy for per­sonal injuries. Allen v. G.D. Searle and Co., 708 F Supp 1142 (D. Or. 1989)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 335, 346, 408 (1972); 53 OLR 473-475 (1974)

Chapter 646

Notes of Decisions

Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not "preempted" by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)

Whether an injunc­tion should issue when a court finds a viola­tion of the Act is a matter of discre­tion. State ex rel Johnson v. Interna­tional Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)

This chapter imposes no af­firm­a­tive duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making in­for­ma­­tion about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646—Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors646.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 646, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­646ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information