Trade Regulation

ORS 646A.115
Software prohibited that interferes with sale of admission tickets to entertainment events

  • unlawful practice


(1)

As used in this section:

(a)

“Admission ticket” means evidence of a purchaser’s right of entry to a venue or an entertainment event.

(b)

“Entertainment event” means a performance, recreation, amusement, diversion, spectacle, show or similar event including, but not limited to, a theatrical or musical performance, concert, film, game, ride or sporting event.

(c)

“Operator” means a person that owns, operates or controls a venue or that produces or promotes an entertainment event, or the person’s agent or employee.

(d)

“Resale” means a sale other than an operator’s initial sale of an admission ticket for a venue that is located in or an entertainment event that occurs in this state, irrespective of the location in which the sale occurs or the means by which a reseller solicits or advertises the sale or delivers or receives payment for the admission ticket.

(e)

“Reseller” means a person other than an operator that conducts a resale.

(2)

A person may not intentionally sell or use software, the purpose of which is to circumvent, thwart, interfere with or evade a control or measure, including a security measure or an access control system, that an operator or reseller establishes or uses to ensure an equitable distribution, sale or resale of admission tickets for an entertainment event.

(3)

Violation of subsection (2) of this section is an unlawful practice under ORS 646.608 (Additional unlawful business, trade practices) that is subject to an action under ORS 646.632 (Enjoining unlawful trade practices) and 646.638 (Civil action by private party). [2009 c.310 §1]
§§ 646A.600 to 646A.628

Law Review Citations

52 WLR 451 (2016)

§§ 646A.400 to 646A.418

(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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021