2017 ORS 646.607¹
Unlawful business, trade practices

A person engages in an unlawful trade practice if in the course of the person’s business, vocation or occupation the person:

(1) Employs any unconscionable tactic in connection with selling, renting or disposing of real estate, goods or services, or collecting or enforcing an obligation;

(2) Fails to deliver all or any portion of real estate, goods or services as promised, and at a customer’s request, fails to refund money that the customer gave to the person to purchase the undelivered real estate, goods or services and that the person does not retain pursuant to any right, claim or defense the person may assert in good faith. This subsection does not create a warranty obligation and does not apply to a dispute over the quality of real estate, goods or services delivered to a customer;

(3) Violates ORS 401.965 (Abnormal disruption of market) (2);

(4) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.725 (Definitions for ORS 646A.725 to 646A.750) to 646A.750 (Rebuttable presumptions);

(5) Violates ORS 646A.530 (Prohibited sales of certain children’s products);

(6) Employs a collection practice that is unlawful under ORS 646.639 (Unlawful collection practices);

(7) Is a beneficiary that violates ORS 86.726 (Resolution conference for foreclosure) (1)(a) or (2), 86.729 (Scheduling and notice for resolution conference) (4) or 86.732 (Attendance at resolution conference) (1) or (2);

(8) Violates ORS 646A.093 (Disclosures for handling and shipping consumer goods required in advertisements, offers and sales);

(9) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.600 (Short title) to 646A.628 (Allocation of moneys);

(10) Violates ORS 646A.808 (Obtaining personal information by false representation via electronic media) (2);

(11) Violates ORS 336.184 (Oregon Student Information Protection Act); or

(12) Publishes on a website related to the person’s business, or in a consumer agreement related to a consumer transaction, a statement or representation of fact in which the person asserts that the person, in a particular manner or for particular purposes, will use, disclose, collect, maintain, delete or dispose of information that the person requests, requires or receives from a consumer and the person uses, discloses, collects, maintains, deletes or disposes of the information in a manner that is materially inconsistent with the person’s statement or representation. [1977 c.195 §4; 1979 c.505 §1; 2003 c.759 §§9,10; 2007 c.223 §6; 2008 c.19 §16; 2008 c.31 §4; 2009 c.60 §1; 2013 c.304 §13; 2013 c.433 §2; 2015 c.128 §2; 2015 c.357 §4; 2015 c.528 §3; 2017 c.145 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff law firm represented creditors and worked as debt collector, plaintiff’s rela­tionship with creditors and debtors was sufficient to satisfy “in connec­tion with” ele­ment re­gard­ing “unconscionable tactic” so that this sec­tion applies to plaintiff’s con­duct. Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 361 Or 352, 393 P3d 1122 (2017)

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 509 (1979); 73 OLR 639 (1994)

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)

For purposes of applying Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, real estate, goods or services are obtained primarily for per­sonal, family or household purposes if (1) real estate, good or service is customarily purchased by substantial number of people for per­sonal, family or household use and (2) per­son actually purchases real estate, good or service for per­sonal, family or household use. Fowler v. Cooley, 239 Or App 338, 245 P3d 155 (2010)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 335, 346, 408 (1972); 53 OLR 473-475 (1974); 94 OLR 589 (2016)

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/­ors/­ors646.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.