Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation

ORS 646.618
Investigative demand

  • petition to modify


(1)

Except as provided in ORS 646.633 (Action by prosecuting attorney prohibited without request of Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services), when it appears to the prosecuting attorney that a person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or practice declared to be unlawful by ORS 646.607 (Unlawful business, trade practices) or 646.608 (Additional unlawful business, trade practices), the prosecuting attorney may execute in writing and cause to be served an investigative demand upon any person who is believed to have information, documentary material or physical evidence relevant to the alleged or suspected violation. The investigative demand shall require such person, under oath or otherwise, to appear and testify, to answer written interrogatories, or to produce relevant documentary material or physical evidence for examination, at such reasonable time and place as may be stated in the investigative demand, or to do any of the foregoing, concerning conduct of any trade or commerce which is the subject matter of the investigation.

(2)

At any time before the return date specified in an investigative demand, or within 20 days after the demand has been served, whichever period is shorter, a petition to extend the return date, or to modify or set aside the demand, stating good cause including privileged material, may be filed in the appropriate court. [1971 c.744 §14; 1973 c.235 §3; 1977 c.195 §6; 2010 c.94 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Court decision upholding Department of Justice investigative demand was special statutory proceeding appealable under [former] ORS 19.010. Garganese v. Dept. of Justice, 318 Or 181, 864 P2d 364 (1993); Vendall Marketing Corp. v. Dept. of Justice, 318 Or 189, 863 P2d 1263 (1993)

Department of Justice need not show prior to issuing investigative demand that recipient of investigative demand, or entity being investigated, is engaged in type of business subject to investigation. Vendall Marketing Corp. v. Dept. of Justice, 318 Or 189, 863 P2d 1263 (1993); State ex rel Kulongoski v. Cunning, 139 Or App 515, 912 P2d 958 (1996)

Professionals subject to agency regulation are not immune from Unlawful Trade Practices Act for business dealings within scope of agency regulation. State ex rel Kulongoski v. Cunning, 139 Or App 515, 912 P2d 958 (1996)

§§ 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