Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652

✓ current as of May 2026

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

646.605 Definitions for ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652. As used in ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652:

(1) “Appropriate court” means the circuit court of a county:

(a) Where one or more of the defendants reside;

(b) Where one or more of the defendants maintain a principal place of business;

(c) Where one or more of the defendants are alleged to have committed an act prohibited by ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652; or

(d) With the defendant’s consent, where the prosecuting attorney maintains an office.

(2) “Documentary material” means the original or a copy of any book, record, report, memorandum, paper, communication, tabulation, map, chart, photograph, mechanical transcription, or other tangible document or recording, wherever situated.

(3) “Examination” of documentary material includes inspection, study or copying of any documentary material, and taking testimony under oath or acknowledgment regarding any documentary material or copy thereof.

(4) “Person” means natural persons, corporations, trusts, partnerships, incorporated or unincorporated associations and any other legal entity except bodies or officers acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.

(5) “Prosecuting attorney” means the Attorney General or the district attorney of any county in which a violation of ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652 is alleged to have occurred.

(6)(a) “Real estate, goods or services” means those that are or may be obtained primarily for personal, family or household purposes, or that are or may be obtained for any purposes as a result of a telephone solicitation, and includes loans and extensions of credit, and franchises, distributorships and other similar business opportunities, but does not include insurance.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection:

(A) “Real estate” does not cover conduct covered by ORS chapter 90.

(B) “Loans and extensions of credit” does not include transactions involving a pawnbroker, as defined in ORS 726.010, that is required to be licensed under ORS chapter 726.

(7) “Telephone solicitation” means a solicitation where a person, in the course of the person’s business, vocation or occupation, uses a telephone or an automatic dialing-announcing device to initiate telephonic contact with a potential customer and the person is not one of the following:

(a) A person who is a broker-dealer or salesperson licensed under ORS 59.175, or a mortgage banker or mortgage broker licensed under ORS 86A.106, when the solicitation is for a security qualified for sale pursuant to ORS 59.055.

(b) A real estate licensee or a person who is otherwise authorized to engage in professional real estate activity pursuant to ORS chapter 696, when the solicitation involves professional real estate activity.

(c) A person licensed or exempt from licensure as a builder pursuant to ORS chapter 701, when the solicitation involves the construction, alteration, repair, improvement or demolition of a structure.

(d) A person licensed or otherwise authorized to sell insurance as an insurance producer pursuant to ORS chapter 744, when the solicitation involves insurance.

(e) A person soliciting the sale of a newspaper of general circulation, a magazine or membership in a book or record club who complies with ORS 646.611, when the solicitation involves newspapers, magazines or membership in a book or record club.

(f) A person soliciting without the intent to complete and who does not complete the sales presentation during the telephone solicitation and who only completes the sales presentation at a later face-to-face meeting between the solicitor and the prospective purchaser.

(g) A supervised financial institution or parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof. As used in this paragraph, “supervised financial institution” means any financial institution or trust company, as those terms are defined in ORS 706.008, or any personal property broker, consumer finance lender, commercial finance lender or insurer that is subject to regulation by an official or agency of this state or of the United States.

(h) A person who is authorized to conduct prearrangement or preconstruction funeral or cemetery sales, pursuant to ORS chapter 692, when the solicitation involves prearrangement or preconstruction funeral or cemetery plans.

(i) A person who solicits the services provided by a cable television system licensed or franchised pursuant to state, local or federal law, when the solicitation involves cable television services.

(j) A person or affiliate of a person whose business is regulated by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.

(k) A person who sells farm products as defined by ORS 576.006 if the solicitation neither intends to nor actually results in a sale that costs the purchaser in excess of $100.

(L) An issuer or subsidiary of an issuer that has a class of securities that is subject to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that is either registered or exempt from registration under paragraph (A), (B), (C), (E), (F), (G) or (H) or subsection (g) of that section.

(m) A person soliciting exclusively the sale of telephone answering services to be provided by that person or that person’s employer when the solicitation involves answering services.

(n) A telecommunications utility with access lines of 15,000 or less or a cooperative telephone association when the solicitation involves regulated goods or services.

(8) “Trade” and “commerce” mean advertising, offering or distributing, whether by sale, rental or otherwise, any real estate, goods or services, and include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this state.

(9) “Unconscionable tactics” include, but are not limited to, actions by which a person:

(a) Knowingly takes advantage of a customer’s physical infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy or inability to understand the language of the agreement;

(b) Knowingly permits a customer to enter into a transaction from which the customer will derive no material benefit;

(c) Permits a customer to enter into a transaction with knowledge that there is no reasonable probability of payment of the attendant financial obligation in full by the customer when due; or

(d) Knowingly takes advantage of a customer who is a disabled veteran, a disabled servicemember or a servicemember in active service, or the spouse of a disabled veteran, disabled servicemember or servicemember in active service. For purposes of this paragraph:

(A) “Disabled veteran” has the meaning given that term in ORS 408.225.

(B) “Disabled servicemember” means a servicemember, as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3911 as in effect on January 1, 2010, who may be entitled to disability compensation under laws administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

(i) A servicemember called into active service under Title 10 or Title 32 of the United States Code as in effect on January 1, 2010; or

(ii) A servicemember on state active duty, as defined in the Oregon Code of Military Justice.

(10) A willful violation occurs when the person committing the violation knew or should have known that the conduct of the person was a violation.

(11) A loan is made “in close connection with the sale of a manufactured dwelling” if:

(a) The lender directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the seller, unless the relationship is remote and is not a factor in the transaction;

(b) The lender gives a commission, rebate or credit in any form to a seller who refers the borrower to the lender, other than payment of the proceeds of the loan jointly to the seller and the borrower;

(d) The seller directly and materially assists the borrower in obtaining the loan;

(e) The seller prepares documents that are given to the lender and used in connection with the loan; or

(f) The lender supplies documents to the seller used by the borrower in obtaining the loan. [1965 c.490 §2; 1967 c.599 §1; 1971 c.744 §5; 1973 c.235 §1; 1977 c.195 §1; 1989 c.137 §1; 1993 c.508 §40; 1995 c.79 §328; 1997 c.249 §197; 1997 c.631 §514; 1999 c.59 §189; 1999 c.402 §6; 2001 c.917 §4; 2003 c.364 §52; 2003 c.658 §§11,12; 2007 c.71 §§198,199; 2007 c.319 §§31,32; 2009 c.215 §§1,2; 2010 c.94 §§1,2; 2013 c.1 §§79,80; 2013 c.81 §§23,24; 2019 c.13 §58]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 171 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Chamberlain v. Jim Fisher Motors, Inc., 578 P.2d 1225 (Or. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chamberlain v. Jim Fisher Motors, Inc., 578 P.2d 1225 (Or. 1978). · cites it 28× “Defendant contends that this was improper because plaintiff's complaint seeks recovery under ORS 646.605 et seq., the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, based upon false representations to her by defendant "regarding the certificate of title"; that summary judgment is not possible…”

Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). · cites it 14× “” ORS 646.605(6)(a). The state, focusing on the statutory text, argues that a violation of ORS 646.”

State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). · cites it 10× “, for alleged violations of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 et seq. The suit was tried in circuit court before a jury which returned a special verdict for defendant.”

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). · cites it 4× “This case arises under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 to 646.656.1 The UTPA sets out an extensive list of unlawful business practices that the leg- islature has deemed harmful to Oregon consumers, and it provides for public and private enforcement actions.”

Crooks v. Pay Less Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 592 P.2d 196 (Or. 1979). · cites it 8× “310 et seq * * * and ORS 646.605 et seq * * *. As previously held, however, we have affirmed plaintiff's right to recovery under ORS 481.”

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “656, the state appeals a judgment in favor of defendants, manu- facturers and sellers of 5-hour Energy® (5-HE) energy drinks, and defendants cross-appeal a supplemental judgment denying their petition for attorney fees under ORS 646.632(8). In its first two assignments of error…”

Jennifer Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2020). “(against Fruit of the Earth); Count XIII: Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605 et seq. (against Fruit of the 6 No.”

Lamm v. Amfac Mortg. Corp., 605 P.2d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 10× “Plaintiffs' complaint alleged violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.605 et seq., based on what they alleged to have been "false or misleading representations" (ORS 646.”

Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 650 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “(Offers to engage in consumer transactions are covered because, although a private right of action is an important part of the UTPA, the Act's principal focus is on preventive action by the Attorney General, and the Attorney General needs to be able to take action against…”

Transamerica Ins. v. Bloomfield, 637 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 10× “2d 1034 (1980), where the court held that the preponderance of the evidence, rather than the clear and convincing evidence, standard of proof was appropriate in an action for a civil penalty under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 et seq. The court noted that…”

Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). · cites it 2× “2 As we will explain, we conclude 1 The UTPA is codified at ORS 646.605 to ORS 646.656. The specific provi- sions under which plaintiffs brought this action are cited and discussed later.”

In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 252 F.R.D. 83 (D. Mass. 2008). · cites it 2× “), Oregon 12 (Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.605, et seq.), Pennsylvania (73 Pa.”

Show all 171 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(1) — 7 cases

Lamm v. Amfac Mortg. Corp., 605 P.2d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Plaintiffs' complaint alleged violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.605 et seq., based on what they alleged to have been "false or misleading representations" (ORS 646.”

Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 650 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “(Offers to engage in consumer transactions are covered because, although a private right of action is an important part of the UTPA, the Act's principal focus is on preventive action by the Attorney General, and the Attorney General needs to be able to take action against…”

Haeger v. Johnson, 548 P.2d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Adamson v. WorldCom Commc'ns, Inc., 78 P.3d 577 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Investigators, Inc. v. Harvey, 633 P.2d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(10) — 12 cases

State v. Nicholson, 383 P.3d 977 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 69 P.3d 710 (Or. 2003).

Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 30 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Adamson v. WorldCom Commc'ns, Inc., 78 P.3d 577 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 558 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(4) — 6 cases

Benson Tower Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Victaulic Co., 22 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (D. Or. 2014).

Volm v. Legacy Health Sys., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Or. 2002).

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 879 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

CollegeNet, Inc. v. Embark. Com, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2001).

Investigators, Inc. v. Harvey, 633 P.2d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(5) — 4 cases

Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 216 P.3d 852 (Or. 2009).

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “656, the state appeals a judgment in favor of defendants, manu- facturers and sellers of 5-hour Energy® (5-HE) energy drinks, and defendants cross-appeal a supplemental judgment denying their petition for attorney fees under ORS 646.632(8). In its first two assignments of error…”

Gross-Haentjens v. Leckenby, 589 P.2d 1209 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Roberts v. Oregon Mut. Ins., 255 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(6) — 7 cases

Fowler v. Cooley, 245 P.3d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Roisland v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Or. 2013).

Mikityuk v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 952 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Or. 2013).

Konecranes, Inc. v. Scott Sinclair, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (D. Or. 2004).

Santoro v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC (D. Or. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(6)(a) — 5 cases

Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “” ORS 646.605(6)(a). The state, focusing on the statutory text, argues that a violation of ORS 646.”

Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Ass'n (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Reynolds v. Concordia Univ., St. Paul (D. Minnesota 2022).

TruNorth Warranty Plans of North Am. v. DCBS, 536 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(7) — 14 cases

Graham v. Kold Kist Beverage Ice, Inc., 607 P.2d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Searle v. Exley Express, Inc., 564 P.2d 1054 (Or. 1977).

State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(8) — 5 cases

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “This case arises under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 to 646.656.1 The UTPA sets out an extensive list of unlawful business practices that the leg- islature has deemed harmful to Oregon consumers, and it provides for public and private enforcement actions.”

Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977).

Sanders v. Francis, 561 P.2d 1003 (Or. 1977).

Fisher v. Wofford, 556 P.2d 127 (Or. 1976).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(9) — 11 cases

Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “” ORS 646.605(6)(a). The state, focusing on the statutory text, argues that a violation of ORS 646.”

State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). “, for alleged violations of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 et seq. The suit was tried in circuit court before a jury which returned a special verdict for defendant.”

Chamberlain v. Jim Fisher Motors, Inc., 578 P.2d 1225 (Or. 1978). “Defendant contends that this was improper because plaintiff's complaint seeks recovery under ORS 646.605 et seq., the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, based upon false representations to her by defendant "regarding the certificate of title"; that summary judgment is not possible…”

Crooks v. Pay Less Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 592 P.2d 196 (Or. 1979). “310 et seq * * * and ORS 646.605 et seq * * *. As previously held, however, we have affirmed plaintiff's right to recovery under ORS 481.”

Transamerica Ins. v. Bloomfield, 637 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “2d 1034 (1980), where the court held that the preponderance of the evidence, rather than the clear and convincing evidence, standard of proof was appropriate in an action for a civil penalty under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 et seq. The court noted that…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(9)(a) — 1 case

Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “” ORS 646.605(6)(a). The state, focusing on the statutory text, argues that a violation of ORS 646.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(9)(b) — 1 case

Barber v. Unitus Cmty. Credit Union (D. Or. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(9)(d) — 1 case

Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “” ORS 646.605(6)(a). The state, focusing on the statutory text, argues that a violation of ORS 646.”

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.