Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 616.215 (2026)

Prohibited acts

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

616.215 Prohibited acts. The following acts and the causing thereof within the State of Oregon are prohibited:

(1) The manufacture, sale or delivery, holding or offering for sale of any food that is adulterated or misbranded.

(2) The adulteration or misbranding of any food.

(3) The receipt in commerce of any food that is adulterated or misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise.

(4) The distribution in commerce of a consumer commodity if such commodity is contained in a package, or if there is affixed to that commodity a label, which does not conform to ORS 616.205 to 616.215, 616.225 to 616.256, 616.286, 616.295, 616.310, 616.315, 616.325, 616.330, 616.341, 616.350 to 616.366, 616.790 and 616.992 and of rules promulgated pursuant thereto. However, this prohibition does not apply to persons engaged in business as wholesale or retail distributors of consumer commodities except to the extent that such persons:

(a) Are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such commodities; or

(b) Prescribe or specify by any means the manner in which such commodities are packaged or labeled.

(5) The dissemination of any false advertisement.

(6) The refusal to permit entry or inspection, or to permit the taking of a sample, or to permit access to or the copying of any record, as authorized.

(7) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking which is false, except by a person who relied on a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by, and containing the name and address of the person from whom the person received in good faith the food.

(8) The removal or disposal of a detained or embargoed article in violation of ORS 616.225.

(9) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to a food, if such act is done while such article is held for sale and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded.

(10) Forging, counterfeiting, simulating or falsely representing, or without proper authority using any mark, stamp, tag, label or other identification device authorized or required by rules promulgated under the provisions of ORS 616.205 to 616.295 and 616.305 to 616.315.

(11) The use by any person to the person’s own advantage, or disclosure, other than to the Director of Agriculture or the authorized representative of the director or to the courts when relevant in any judicial proceeding under ORS 616.205 to 616.385, of any information acquired under the authority of ORS 616.205 to 616.385 concerning any method or process which is a trade secret entitled to protection. [Amended by 1973 c.227 §3; 2001 c.320 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× ““* * * Defendant disseminated a false advertisement as defined by ORS 616.215(5) which is prohibited by ORS 616.”

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025). · cites it 3× “18 and 21 USC § 331 , and had been falsely advertised in violation of ORS 616.215(5), 616.265, and 616.270; further, because Tillamook was “prohibited” from engaging in such conduct, plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of their “purchase price.”

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025). · cites it 3× “18 and 21 USC § 331 , and had been falsely advertised in violation of ORS 616.215(5), ORS 616.265, and ORS 616.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 616.215(5) — 3 cases

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). ““* * * Defendant disseminated a false advertisement as defined by ORS 616.215(5) which is prohibited by ORS 616.”

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025). “18 and 21 USC § 331 , and had been falsely advertised in violation of ORS 616.215(5), 616.265, and 616.270; further, because Tillamook was “prohibited” from engaging in such conduct, plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of their “purchase price.”

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025). “18 and 21 USC § 331 , and had been falsely advertised in violation of ORS 616.215(5), ORS 616.265, and ORS 616.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.