utpa claim in Oregon

2025The court rejected plain- tiffs’ reliance on Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, 292 Or App 69 , 423 P3d 757 , rev den, 363 Or 815 (2018), cert dismissed, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 16 (2019)—a case in which the court held that reliance was not required for the plain- tiffs’ UTPA claim.

2025The court rejected plain- tiffs’ reliance on Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, 292 Or App 69 , 423 P3d 757 , rev den, 363 Or 815 (2018), cert dismissed, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 16 (2019)—a case in which the court held that reliance was not required for the plain- tiffs’ UTPA claim.

2025The court rejected plain- tiffs’ reliance on Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, 292 Or App 69 , 423 P3d 757 , rev den, 363 Or 815 (2018), cert dismissed, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 16 (2019)—a case in which the court held that reliance was not required for the plain- tiffs’ UTPA claim.

2025The court rejected plain- tiffs’ reliance on Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, 292 Or App 69 , 423 P3d 757 , rev den, 363 Or 815 (2018), cert dismissed, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 16 (2019)—a case in which the court held that reliance was not required for the plain- tiffs’ UTPA claim.

2025The court rejected plain- tiffs’ reliance on Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, 292 Or App 69 , 423 P3d 757 , rev den, 363 Or 815 (2018), cert dismissed, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 16 (2019)—a case in which the court held that reliance was not required for the plain- tiffs’ UTPA claim.

2025The court rejected plain- tiffs’ reliance on Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, 292 Or App 69 , 423 P3d 757 , rev den, 363 Or 815 (2018), cert dismissed, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 16 (2019)—a case in which the court held that reliance was not required for the plain- tiffs’ UTPA claim.

2015Weigel, 298 Or at 134-37 .

2015Weigel, 298 Or at 134-37 .

2023Regarding the remainder of the UTPA claim that Cite as 323 Or App 573 (2023) 579 was not preempted by ERISA, the trial court found that there was no evidence that defendant (or the attorneys of FisherBroyles on behalf of defendant) made the misrepre- sentations alleged by plaintiff.

2023Cite as 323 Or App 573 (2023) 583 trial court found that all of the other alleged misrepresen- tations in plaintiff’s UTPA claim required no interpretation of the Plan to determine falsity, but that alleged misrepre- sentation (c) was different, and required interpretation of the terms of the Plan to determine its falsity.

2022The court in Pearson II also noted, in its discussion of plaintiffs diminished value theory, with regard to a price- inflation type claim, that that theory was not viable on the record before it: “It may be, as plaintiffs represented to the trial court, that through expert testimony, they had some specialized Cite as 321 Or App 213 (2022) 233 economic theory to present to establish on a classwide basis that each of the class members suffered a diminished value loss.

2021What may be false is the implication that the specific dosage of B-vitamins in a given bottle of 5HE will have a noticeable effect on the energy level of a Cite as 313 Or App 176 (2021) 203 consumer, absent caffeine, during the five hours following consumption.” The court recognized that defendants’ represen- tations “may carry some false implications as to the effect of the specific NCI in a bottle of Decaf 5HE.” (Emphasis in original.) In response to precisely the same point that the state now makes on appeal—that the court should have entered judgment for the state because it had found all

2021What may be false is the implication that the specific dosage of B-vitamins in a given bottle of 5HE will have a noticeable effect on the energy level of a Cite as 313 Or App 176 (2021) 203 consumer, absent caffeine, during the five hours following consumption.” The court recognized that defendants’ represen- tations “may carry some false implications as to the effect of the specific NCI in a bottle of Decaf 5HE.” (Emphasis in original.) In response to precisely the same point that the state now makes on appeal—that the court should have entered judgment for the state because it had found all

2018App. 774 , 782, 387 P.3d 381 (2016). *87 At its core, BP's combined argument asks us to resolve a legal question-whether plaintiff's specific UTPA claim requires proof of reliance.

2015There, the buyer of a mobile home brought a UTPA claim against the seller, Pop’s Homes, alleging that it had misrepresented the status of the mobile home’s location in a trailer park when the defendant seller had known of, but not disclosed, a risk that the mobile home could not remain there. 54 Or App at 106 .

2015There, the buyer of a mobile home brought a UTPA claim against the seller, Pop’s Homes, alleging that it had misrepresented the status of the mobile home’s location in a trailer park when the defendant seller had known of, but not disclosed, a risk that the mobile home could not remain there. 54 Or App at 106 .

2015Unlike a private litigant, who “may bring a UTPA claim only if it has suffered an ‘ascertainable loss of money or property’ as a result of a ‘willful’ violation of the statute, [those] requirements do not apply when the state brings a UTPA claim.” Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 335 Or 404 , 413 n 5, 69 P3d 710 (2003); see ORS 646.618 (authorizing investigations); ORS 646.632 (describing state UTPA enforcement processes); ORS 646.638(1) (setting out “ascertainable loss” requirement for private actions); ORS 646.642 (authorizing enforcement of injunctions and compliance agreements and civil

2015Unlike a private litigant, who “may bring a UTPA claim only if it has suffered an ‘ascertainable loss of money or property’ as a result of a ‘willful’ violation of the statute, [those] requirements do not apply when the state brings a UTPA claim.” Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 335 Or 404 , 413 n 5, 69 P3d 710 (2003); see ORS 646.618 (authorizing investigations); ORS 646.632 (describing state UTPA enforcement processes); ORS 646.638(1) (setting out “ascertainable loss” requirement for private actions); ORS 646.642 (authorizing enforcement of injunctions and compliance agreements and civil

2013That is not the law in Oregon, where the Supreme Court has held that whether proof of reliance is required for a UTPA claim depends on the unlawful trade practice alleged, Sanders, 277 Or at 598-99 , and we have held that, in a case where a plaintiff claims to have acted on an express representation, proof of reliance is essential, Feitler, 170 Or App at 708 . 14 Plaintiffs also contend that “no proof [of reliance] is necessary where the defendant is under an independent duty to speak the truth.” They cite Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 971-72 , 607 P2d 1375 (1979), rev den, 288

2013That is not the law in Oregon, where the Supreme Court has held that whether proof of reliance is required for a UTPA claim depends on the unlawful trade practice alleged, Sanders, 277 Or at 598-99 , and we have held that, in a case where a plaintiff claims to have acted on an express representation, proof of reliance is essential, Feitler, 170 Or App at 708 . 14 Plaintiffs also contend that “no proof [of reliance] is necessary where the defendant is under an independent duty to speak the truth.” They cite Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 971-72 , 607 P2d 1375 (1979), rev den, 288

2013That is not the law in Oregon, where the Supreme Court has held that whether proof of reliance is required for a UTPA claim depends on the unlawful trade practice alleged, Sanders, 277 Or at 598-99 , and we have held that, in a case where a plaintiff claims to have acted on an express representation, proof of reliance is essential, Feitler, 170 Or App at 708 . 14 Plaintiffs also contend that “no proof [of reliance] is necessary where the defendant is under an independent duty to speak the truth.” They cite Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 971-72 , 607 P2d 1375 (1979), rev den, 288

2013That is not the law in Oregon, where the Supreme Court has held that whether proof of reliance is required for a UTPA claim depends on the unlawful trade practice alleged, Sanders, 277 Or at 598-99 , and we have held that, in a case where a plaintiff claims to have acted on an express representation, proof of reliance is essential, Feitler, 170 Or App at 708 . 14 Plaintiffs also contend that “no proof [of reliance] is necessary where the defendant is under an independent duty to speak the truth.” They cite Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 971-72 , 607 P2d 1375 (1979), rev den, 288

2013That is not the law in Oregon, where the Supreme Court has held that whether proof of reliance is required for a UTPA claim depends on the unlawful trade practice alleged, Sanders, 277 Or at 598-99 , and we have held that, in a case where a plaintiff claims to have acted on an express representation, proof of reliance is essential, Feitler, 170 Or App at 708 . 14 Plaintiffs also contend that “no proof [of reliance] is necessary where the defendant is under an independent duty to speak the truth.” They cite Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 971-72 , 607 P2d 1375 (1979), rev den, 288

2013That is not the law in Oregon, where the Supreme Court has held that whether proof of reliance is required for a UTPA claim depends on the unlawful trade practice alleged, Sanders, 277 Or at 598-99 , and we have held that, in a case where a plaintiff claims to have acted on an express representation, proof of reliance is essential, Feitler, 170 Or App at 708 . 14 Plaintiffs also contend that “no proof [of reliance] is necessary where the defendant is under an independent duty to speak the truth.” They cite Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 971-72 , 607 P2d 1375 (1979), rev den, 288

2013As the Supreme Court has explained, the elements of a UTPA claim are “distinct and separate “ from the elements of common-law fraud, and a violation of the UTPA is “much more easily shown.” Wolverton v. Stanwood, 278 Or 709, 713 , 565 P2d 755 (1977); Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 59 Or App 166, 171 , 650 P2d 1006 (1982) (“Had the legislature intended that a consumer prove all the elements of eommon[-]law fraud in order to recover damages, it would have been unnecessary to create a cause of action by statute.”).

2013As the Supreme Court has explained, the elements of a UTPA claim are “distinct and separate “ from the elements of common-law fraud, and a violation of the UTPA is “much more easily shown.” Wolverton v. Stanwood, 278 Or 709, 713 , 565 P2d 755 (1977); Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 59 Or App 166, 171 , 650 P2d 1006 (1982) (“Had the legislature intended that a consumer prove all the elements of eommon[-]law fraud in order to recover damages, it would have been unnecessary to create a cause of action by statute.”).

2005Id. at 546 ..The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on two ORLTA claims and one UTPA claim.

2005Id.

2001Oberg (state), 320 Or at 552-56 .

2001Oberg (state), 320 Or at 552-56 .

2001Defendant challenged the jury’s award of punitive damages on several grounds, including excessiveness under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7 The trial court noted that the record supported what was “an extraordinarily egregious violation” of the UTPA, but, on defendant’s motion for elimination or reduction of the punitive damages award, lowered plaintiffs punitive damages award to $50,000, finding that $50,000 “is the number which is the top of the range which * * * a rational factfinder could award on this * * * record.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals followed Bl

2001Defendant challenged the jury’s award of punitive damages on several grounds, including excessiveness under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7 The trial court noted that the record supported what was “an extraordinarily egregious violation” of the UTPA, but, on defendant’s motion for elimination or reduction of the punitive damages award, lowered plaintiffs punitive damages award to $50,000, finding that $50,000 “is the number which is the top of the range which * * * a rational factfinder could award on this * * * record.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals followed Bl

2001We review for errors of law, GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 323 Or 116, 118 , 914 P2d 682 (1996), and reverse and remand.

2001We review for errors of law, GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 323 Or 116, 118 , 914 P2d 682 (1996), and reverse and remand.

1996The trial court, citing Haeger v. Johnson, 25 Or App 131 , 548 P2d 532 (1976), and Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203 , *123 605 P2d 730 (1980), concluded that “mortgage brokers are exempt from UTPA applications” (emphasis in original) and dismissed the UTPA claim. 1 In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), we assume the truth of plaintiffs’ pleadings, including particularly plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendant did not loan money or extend credit to Plaintiffs.” Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992).

1996The trial court, citing Haeger v. Johnson, 25 Or App 131 , 548 P2d 532 (1976), and Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203 , *123 605 P2d 730 (1980), concluded that “mortgage brokers are exempt from UTPA applications” (emphasis in original) and dismissed the UTPA claim. 1 In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), we assume the truth of plaintiffs’ pleadings, including particularly plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendant did not loan money or extend credit to Plaintiffs.” Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992).

1996The trial court, citing Haeger v. Johnson, 25 Or App 131 , 548 P2d 532 (1976), and Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203 , *123 605 P2d 730 (1980), concluded that “mortgage brokers are exempt from UTPA applications” (emphasis in original) and dismissed the UTPA claim. 1 In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), we assume the truth of plaintiffs’ pleadings, including particularly plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendant did not loan money or extend credit to Plaintiffs.” Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992).

1996The trial court, citing Haeger v. Johnson, 25 Or App 131 , 548 P2d 532 (1976), and Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203 , *123 605 P2d 730 (1980), concluded that “mortgage brokers are exempt from UTPA applications” (emphasis in original) and dismissed the UTPA claim. 1 In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), we assume the truth of plaintiffs’ pleadings, including particularly plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendant did not loan money or extend credit to Plaintiffs.” Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992).

1996The trial court, citing Haeger v. Johnson, 25 Or App 131 , 548 P2d 532 (1976), and Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203 , *123 605 P2d 730 (1980), concluded that “mortgage brokers are exempt from UTPA applications” (emphasis in original) and dismissed the UTPA claim. 1 In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), we assume the truth of plaintiffs’ pleadings, including particularly plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendant did not loan money or extend credit to Plaintiffs.” Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992).

1996The trial court, citing Haeger v. Johnson, 25 Or App 131 , 548 P2d 532 (1976), and Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203 , *123 605 P2d 730 (1980), concluded that “mortgage brokers are exempt from UTPA applications” (emphasis in original) and dismissed the UTPA claim. 1 In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), we assume the truth of plaintiffs’ pleadings, including particularly plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendant did not loan money or extend credit to Plaintiffs.” Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992).

1992To avoid the bar of a limitation, plaintiffs “must plead facts sufficient to show that the delay is excused.” Eldridge v. Eastmoreland General Hospital, 88 Or App 547, 550 , 746 P2d 735 (1987), aff’d 307 Or 500 , 769 P2d 775 (1989).

1992To avoid the bar of a limitation, plaintiffs “must plead facts sufficient to show that the delay is excused.” Eldridge v. Eastmoreland General Hospital, 88 Or App 547, 550 , 746 P2d 735 (1987), aff’d 307 Or 500 , 769 P2d 775 (1989).