Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation

ORS 646.612
Application of ORS 646.607 and 646.608


ORS 646.607 (Unlawful business, trade practices) and 646.608 (Additional unlawful business, trade practices) do not apply to:

(1)

Conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by a federal, state or local governmental agency.

(2)

Acts done by the publisher, owner, agent or employee of a newspaper, periodical, telephone directory or radio or television station in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, when the publisher, owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading or deceptive character of the advertisement. [1971 c.744 §10; 1977 c.195 §5; 2005 c.577 §1]

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)

Federal Trade Commission statutes and regulations regarding used motor vehicles do not preempt ORS 646.608 (1)(t). Hinds v. Paul's Auto Werkstatt, Inc., 107 Or App 63, 810 P2d 874 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Professional standards of care permitting, but not requiring, conduct that is alleged to be improper are relevant to demonstrate mental state. State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Freeman, 131 Or App 336, 884 P2d 878 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Restrictions on the right of a cosmetic therapist to advertise as a "barber," (1973) Vol 36, p 365

Law Review Citations

54 OLR 117-160 (1975)

§§ 646.605 to 646.656

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)

§§ 646.605 to 646.652

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


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021