ORS 646.651¹
Contest and sweepstakes solicitations
  • required disclosures
  • prohibited representations

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Contest" means a procedure for awarding a prize in which the outcome depends at least in part on the skill of the contestant. "Contest" includes any competition in which a person is required to purchase anything, pay anything of value or make a donation in order to participate. "Contest" also includes a competition that is advertised in a way that creates a reasonable impression that a payment of anything of value, purchase of anything or making a donation is a condition of winning a prize or competing for or obtaining information about a prize.

(b) "Sweepstakes" means a procedure for awarding a prize that is based on chance. "Sweepstakes" includes any such procedure in which a person is required to purchase anything, pay anything of value or make a donation as a condition of winning a prize or of receiving or obtaining information about a prize. "Sweepstakes" also includes any such procedure that is advertised in a way that creates a reasonable impression that a payment of anything of value, purchase of anything or making a donation is a condition of winning a prize or receiving or obtaining information about a prize.

(c) "Clearly and conspicuously" means the message is conveyed in a manner that is reasonably apparent to the audience to whom it is directed. In order for a message to be considered clear and conspicuous, it shall, at a minimum:

(A) Not contradict or substantially alter any terms it purports to clarify, explain or otherwise relate to; and

(B) In the case of printed solicitations:

(i) Be in close proximity to the terms it purports to clarify, explain or otherwise relate to; and

(ii) Be of sufficient prominence in terms of placement, font or color contrast as compared with the remainder of the solicitation so as to be reasonably apparent to the audience to whom it is directed.

(2) A person engages in an unlawful practice when, in the course of the person’s business, vocation or occupation, the person uses the United States mail to solicit participation in a contest and the person does not clearly and conspicuously disclose in the solicitation:

(a) The maximum number of rounds or levels, if the contest has more than one round or level;

(b) The date the final winner will be determined;

(c) The maximum total cost the final winner will have paid to the sponsor to participate in the contest;

(d) Whether the final winner must purchase or pay anything of value to a person other than the sponsor if purchasing or paying is a condition of eligibility;

(e) If the contest involves multiple rounds of increasing difficulty, an example illustrative of the last determinative round or a statement that subsequent rounds will be more difficult;

(f) If the contest is judged by someone other than the sponsor, the identity of or description of the qualifications of the judges;

(g) The method used in judging; and

(h) The name and address of the sponsor or the sponsor’s agent.

(3) A person engages in an unlawful practice when, in the course of the person’s business, vocation or occupation, the person uses the United States mail to solicit participation in a sweepstakes and does not clearly and conspicuously disclose in the solicitation:

(a) The odds of winning in Arabic numerals, except that if the odds of winning depend on the number of entries received, a statement to that effect will be deemed sufficient;

(b) The name and address of the sponsor or the sponsor’s agent, consistently stated wherever it is used; and

(c) The procedure for entry without purchase.

(4) A person engages in an unlawful practice when, in the course of the person’s business, vocation or occupation, the person solicits participation in a contest or sweepstakes:

(a) By using the United States mail to represent that a person has been selected to receive or has won a particular prize, when that is not the case; or

(b) By using the United States mail to represent that a person is a winner, is a finalist, is in first place or is otherwise in a limited group of persons with an enhanced likelihood of winning or receiving a prize, when more than 25 percent of the persons receiving the solicitation have the same chance of winning. [1999 c.875 §2]

Note: See note under 646.649 (Late fees on delinquent cable service accounts).

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