2017 ORS 646A.610¹
Permissible fees

(1) A consumer reporting agency may not charge a fee to a consumer or a protected consumer who is the victim of identity theft or to a consumer who has reported or a protected consumer for whom a representative has reported to a law enforcement agency the theft of personal information, provided the consumer or the representative has submitted to the consumer reporting agency a copy of a valid police report, incident report or identity theft declaration.

(2)(a) A consumer reporting agency may charge a reasonable fee of not more than $10 to a consumer, other than a consumer described in subsection (1) of this section, for each placement of a security freeze, temporary lift of the security freeze, removal of the security freeze or replacing a lost personal identification number or password previously provided to the consumer.

(b)(A) Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section and in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, a consumer reporting agency may charge a reasonable fee of not more than $10 to place or remove a security freeze for a protected consumer’s consumer report or protective record or to create or delete a protective record for a protected consumer.

(B) A consumer reporting agency may not charge a fee to place or remove a security freeze on an existing consumer report or protective record for a protected consumer who is under 16 years of age at the time a representative requests the consumer reporting agency to place or remove the security freeze. [2007 c.759 §6; 2013 c.415 §4]

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.