2017 ORS 646A.210¹
Requiring credit card number as condition for accepting check or share draft prohibited
  • exceptions

(1) A person shall not require as a condition of acceptance of a check or share draft, or as a means of identification, that the person presenting the check or share draft provide a credit card number or expiration date, or both, unless the credit is issued by the person requiring the information.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not prohibit a person from:

(a) Requesting a person presenting a check or share draft to display a credit card as indicia of creditworthiness and financial responsibility or as a source of additional identification;

(b) Recording the type of credit card and the issuer of the credit card displayed by the person under paragraph (a) of this subsection;

(c) Requesting or receiving a credit card number or expiration date, or both, and recording the number or date, or both, in lieu of a security deposit to assure payment in event of default, loss, damage or other occurrence;

(d) Recording a credit card number or expiration date, or both, as a condition for acceptance of a check or share draft where the card issuer guarantees checks or share drafts presented by the cardholder upon the condition that the person to whom the check is presented records the card number or expiration date, or both, on the check or share draft;

(e) Requesting and recording the name, address, motor vehicle operator license number or state identification card number and telephone number of a person offering payment by check; or

(f) Verifying the signature, name and expiration date on a credit card.

(3) This section does not require acceptance of a check or share draft whether or not a credit card is presented.

(4) For purposes of this section, “person” means any individual, corporation, partnership or association. [Formerly 646.892]

Law Review Cita­tions

52 WLR 451 (2016)

(formerly 646.315 to 646.375)

Notes of Decisions

Where purchaser fails to provide notice of condi­tion requiring repair, presump­tion does not arise that repair time exceeding 30 business days demonstrates inability of manufacturer to conform vehicle. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Repair time exceeding 30 business days as evidence of inability to conform vehicle applies only to presently existing defect. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 329 (1983)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646A—Trade Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646A.­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.