Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608 (2026)

Additional unlawful business, trade practices; proof; rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      646.608 Additional unlawful business, trade practices; proof; rules. (1) A person engages in an unlawful practice if in the course of the person’s business, vocation or occupation the person does any of the following:

      (a) Passes off real estate, goods or services as the real estate, goods or services of another.

      (b) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of real estate, goods or services.

      (c) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another.

      (d) Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with real estate, goods or services.

      (e) Represents that real estate, goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that the real estate, goods or services do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, qualification, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have.

      (f) Represents that real estate or goods are original or new if the real estate or goods are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or secondhand.

      (g) Represents that real estate, goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that real estate or goods are of a particular style or model, if the real estate, goods or services are of another.

      (h) Disparages the real estate, goods, services, property or business of a customer or another by false or misleading representations of fact.

      (i) Advertises real estate, goods or services with intent not to provide the real estate, goods or services as advertised, or with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity.

      (j) Makes false or misleading representations of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.

      (k) Makes false or misleading representations concerning credit availability or the nature of the transaction or obligation incurred.

      (L) Makes false or misleading representations relating to commissions or other compensation to be paid in exchange for permitting real estate, goods or services to be used for model or demonstration purposes or in exchange for submitting names of potential customers.

      (m) Performs service on or dismantles any goods or real estate if the owner or apparent owner of the goods or real estate does not authorize the service or dismantling.

      (n) Solicits potential customers by telephone or door to door as a seller unless the person provides the information required under ORS 646.611.

      (o) In a sale, rental or other disposition of real estate, goods or services, gives or offers to give a rebate or discount or otherwise pays or offers to pay value to the customer in consideration of the customer giving to the person the names of prospective purchasers, lessees, or borrowers, or otherwise aiding the person in making a sale, lease, or loan to another person, if earning the rebate, discount or other value is contingent upon an event occurring after the time the customer enters into the transaction.

      (p) Makes any false or misleading statement about a prize, contest or promotion used to publicize a product, business or service.

      (q) Promises to deliver real estate, goods or services within a certain period of time with intent not to deliver the real estate, goods or services as promised.

      (r) Organizes or induces or attempts to induce membership in a pyramid club.

      (s) Makes false or misleading representations of fact concerning the offering price of, or the person’s cost for real estate, goods or services.

      (t) Concurrent with tender or delivery of any real estate, goods or services, fails to disclose any known material defect or material nonconformity.

      (u) Engages in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.

      (v) Violates any of the provisions relating to auction sales, consignment sales, auctioneers, consignees or auction marts under ORS 698.640, whether in a commercial or noncommercial situation.

      (w) Manufactures mercury fever thermometers.

      (x) Sells or supplies mercury fever thermometers unless the thermometer is required by federal law, or is:

      (A) Prescribed by a person licensed under ORS chapter 677; and

      (B) Supplied with instructions on the careful handling of the thermometer to avoid breakage and on the proper cleanup of mercury should breakage occur.

      (y) Sells a thermostat that contains mercury, unless the thermostat is labeled in a manner to inform the purchaser that mercury is present in the thermostat and that the thermostat may not be disposed of until the mercury is removed, reused, recycled or otherwise managed to ensure that the mercury does not become part of the solid waste stream or wastewater. For purposes of this paragraph, “thermostat” means a device commonly used to sense and, through electrical communication with heating, cooling or ventilation equipment, control room temperature.

      (z) Sells or offers for sale a motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 2006, that contains mercury light switches.

      (aa) Violates the provisions of ORS 803.375, 803.385 or 815.410 to 815.430.

      (bb) Violates ORS 646A.070 (1).

      (cc) Violates any requirement of ORS 646A.030 to 646A.040.

      (dd) Violates the provisions of ORS 128.801 to 128.898.

      (ee) Violates ORS 646.883 or 646.885.

      (ff) Violates ORS 646.569 or 646A.374.

      (gg) Violates the provisions of ORS 646A.142.

      (hh) Violates ORS 646A.360.

      (ii) Violates ORS 646.553 or 646.557 or any rule adopted pursuant thereto.

      (jj) Violates ORS 646.563.

      (kk) Violates ORS 759.680 or any rule adopted pursuant thereto.

      (LL) Violates the provisions of ORS 759.705, 759.710 and 759.720 or any rule adopted pursuant thereto.

      (mm) Violates ORS 646A.210 or 646A.214.

      (nn) Violates any provision of ORS 646A.124 to 646A.134.

      (oo) Violates ORS 646A.095.

      (pp) Violates ORS 822.046.

      (qq) Violates ORS 128.001.

      (rr) Violates ORS 646A.800 (2) to (4).

      (ss) Violates ORS 646A.090.

      (tt) Violates ORS 87.686.

      (uu) Violates ORS 646A.803.

      (vv) Violates ORS 646A.362.

      (ww) Violates ORS 646A.052 or any rule adopted under ORS 646A.052 or 646A.054.

      (xx) Violates ORS 180.440 (1) or 180.486 (1).

      (yy) Commits the offense of acting as a vehicle dealer without a certificate under ORS 822.005.

      (zz) Violates ORS 87.007 (2) or (3).

      (aaa) Violates ORS 92.405 (1), (2) or (3).

      (bbb) Engages in an unlawful practice under ORS 646.648.

      (ccc) Violates ORS 646A.365.

      (ddd) Violates ORS 98.853, 98.854, 98.856 or 98.858.

      (eee) Sells a gift card in violation of ORS 646A.276.

      (fff) Violates ORS 646A.102, 646A.106 or 646A.108.

      (ggg) Violates ORS 646A.430 to 646A.450.

      (hhh) Violates a provision of ORS 744.318 to 744.384.

      (iii) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.702 to 646A.720.

      (jjj) Violates ORS 646A.530 30 or more days after a recall notice, warning or declaration described in ORS 646A.530 is issued for the children’s product, as defined in ORS 646A.525, that is the subject of the violation.

      (kkk) Violates a provision of ORS 697.612, 697.642, 697.652, 697.662, 697.682, 697.692 or 697.707.

      (LLL) Violates the consumer protection provisions of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. 3901 et seq., as in effect on January 1, 2010.

      (mmm) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.480 to 646A.495.

      (nnn) Violates ORS 646A.082.

      (ooo) Violates ORS 646.647.

      (ppp) Violates ORS 646A.115.

      (qqq) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.405.

      (rrr) Violates ORS 646A.092.

      (sss) Violates a provision of ORS 646.644.

      (ttt) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.295.

      (uuu) Engages in the business of, or acts in the capacity of, an immigration consultant, as defined in ORS 9.280, in this state and for compensation, unless federal law authorizes the person to do so or unless the person is an active licensee of the Oregon State Bar.

      (vvv) Violates ORS 702.012, 702.029 or 702.054.

      (www) Violates ORS 646A.806.

      (xxx) Violates ORS 646A.810 (2).

      (yyy) Violates ORS 443.376.

      (zzz) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.770 to 646A.787.

      (aaaa) Violates ORS 815.077.

      (bbbb) Violates a provision of ORS 83.710 to 83.750.

      (cccc) Violates ORS 646A.087.

      (dddd) Violates ORS 646A.815.

      (eeee) Violates ORS 646A.677 (11)(a) or (12).

      (2) A representation under subsection (1) of this section or ORS 646.607 may be any manifestation of any assertion by words or conduct, including, but not limited to, a failure to disclose a fact.

      (3) In order to prevail in an action or suit under ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652, a prosecuting attorney need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.

      (4) An action or suit may not be brought under subsection (1)(u) of this section unless the Attorney General has first established a rule in accordance with the provisions of ORS chapter 183 declaring the conduct to be unfair or deceptive in trade or commerce.

      (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652, if an action or suit is brought under subsection (1)(xx) of this section by a person other than a prosecuting attorney, relief is limited to an injunction, and the prevailing party may be awarded reasonable attorney fees. [1971 c.744 §7 (enacted in lieu of 646.615); 1973 c.235 §2; 1973 c.513 §1; 1975 c.437 §1; 1977 c.195 §2; 1979 c.503 §4; 1983 c.404 §5; 1985 c.251 §10a; 1985 c.538 §3; 1985 c.694 §8; 1985 c.729 §22; 1987 c.626 §5; 1989 c.273 §7; 1989 c.451 §4; 1989 c.458 §3; 1989 c.621 §4; 1989 c.622 §7; 1989 c.623 §3; 1989 c.913 §1; 1991 c.532 §25; 1991 c.672 §8; 1993 c.58 §3; 1993 c.283 §10; 1993 c.582 §11; 1993 c.645 §10; 1993 c.700 §2; 1995 c.713 §6; 1995 c.788 §2; 1997 c.132 §6; 1997 c.806 §2; 1999 c.194 §9; 1999 c.400 §4; 1999 c.669 §3; 1999 c.719 §3; 1999 c.875 §3; 2001 c.924 §§11,13; 2001 c.969 §5; 2003 c.133 §§1,2; 2003 c.486 §§2,3; 2003 c.778 §§4,5; 2003 c.801 §§18,19; 2005 c.42 §§1,2; 2005 c.799 §§2,3; 2007 c.304 §2; 2007 c.538 §18; 2007 c.685 §13; 2007 c.772 §4; 2007 c.820 §8; 2007 c.823 §5; 2008 c.19 §§7,8; 2008 c.31 §§5,6; 2009 c.133 §6; 2009 c.150 §1; 2009 c.170 §1; 2009 c.197 §1; 2009 c.215 §3; 2009 c.310 §2; 2009 c.448 §11; 2009 c.604 §23; 2009 c.711 §21; 2009 c.717 §26; 2011 c.57 §2; 2011 c.502 §3; 2011 c.509 §4; 2012 c.52 §6; 2013 c.54 §8; 2013 c.77 §1; 2013 c.330 §2; 2013 c.493 §5; 2014 c.19 §3; 2015 c.523 §§9,10; 2017 c.113 §§14,15; 2017 c.241 §§2,3; 2017 c.480 §§15,16; 2017 c.656 §§5,6; 2019 c.13 §§59,60; 2019 c.175 §2; 2021 c.578 §12; 2023 c.278 §2; 2023 c.322 §3; 2023 c.410 §6; 2025 c.32 §109; 2025 c.81 §2; 2025 c.160 §2; 2025 c.311 §2; 2025 c.326 §2; 2025 c.343 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 193 cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). · cites it 55× “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 55× “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). · cites it 24× “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). · cites it 17× “6 Wolverton analyzed ORS 646.608 (1977), which contained the term “his business” in place of the current version’s “the person’s business.”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). · cites it 20× “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC, 423 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 22× “A class action for statutory damages may be maintained under the UTPA "only if the plaintiffs in the action establish that the members have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant of a method,…”
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 25× “” It also alleged what we understand to be an “induce- ment” theory of loss: “Plaintiffs and the class paid higher prices for Tillamook’s dairy products because of their understanding that the 5 ORS 646.608 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person engages in an unlawful…”
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). · cites it 15× “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
Fowler v. Cooley, 245 P.3d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “*348 The UTPA provides that “any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an…”
Millennium Enter., Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or. 1999). · cites it 11× “As defendants argue, the primary purpose of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which includes § 646.608, is to protect consumers from misleading representations regarding the source of products, thus creating a “likelihood of confusion.”
Horton v. Nelson, 288 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 17× “607 or ORS 646.608. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, while engaging in a common plan with Kennedy and the company, violated both statutes by inducing plaintiff to purchase a tractor that defendants never intended to deliver.”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 306 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 19× “638(1), which provides, in part: “[A]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in…”
Show all 193 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1) — 53 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “6 Wolverton analyzed ORS 646.608 (1977), which contained the term “his business” in place of the current version’s “the person’s business.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 650 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(Z) — 1 case
Torrance v. Aames Funding Corp., 242 F. Supp. 2d 862 (D. Or. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(a) — 5 cases
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 362 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Reynolds v. Concordia Univ., St. Paul (D. Minnesota 2022).
Serpas Parada v. MJ's Labor Servs., Inc. (D. Or. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(aa) — 1 case
BP West Coast Prods., LLP v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 396 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(aaaa) — 1 case
Warre v. Portfolio Servs. Ltd., Inc. (D. Or. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(b) — 16 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” It also alleged what we understand to be an “induce- ment” theory of loss: “Plaintiffs and the class paid higher prices for Tillamook’s dairy products because of their understanding that the 5 ORS 646.608 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person engages in an unlawful…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 558 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(c) — 3 cases
Millennium Enter., Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or. 1999). “As defendants argue, the primary purpose of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which includes § 646.608, is to protect consumers from misleading representations regarding the source of products, thus creating a “likelihood of confusion.”
Reynolds v. Concordia Univ., St. Paul (D. Minnesota 2022).
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Ass'n (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(d) — 6 cases
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” It also alleged what we understand to be an “induce- ment” theory of loss: “Plaintiffs and the class paid higher prices for Tillamook’s dairy products because of their understanding that the 5 ORS 646.608 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person engages in an unlawful…”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 362 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Ass'n (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(e) — 33 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” It also alleged what we understand to be an “induce- ment” theory of loss: “Plaintiffs and the class paid higher prices for Tillamook’s dairy products because of their understanding that the 5 ORS 646.608 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person engages in an unlawful…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(ee) — 3 cases
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025).
Esgate v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(f) — 5 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
Weigel v. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet Co., 690 P.2d 488 (Or. 1984).
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 362 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Weigel v. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet Co., 673 P.2d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(g) — 3 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 362 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Serpas Parada v. MJ's Labor Servs., Inc. (D. Or. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(h) — 5 cases
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 582 P.2d 1365 (Or. 1978).
Providence Health & Servs.-Oregon v. Mancuso, 524 P.3d 973 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Serpas Parada v. MJ's Labor Servs., Inc. (D. Or. 2019).
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Or. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(i) — 7 cases
Horton v. Nelson, 288 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “607 or ORS 646.608. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, while engaging in a common plan with Kennedy and the company, violated both statutes by inducing plaintiff to purchase a tractor that defendants never intended to deliver.”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 306 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “638(1), which provides, in part: “[A]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in…”
McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025).
Kirkpatrick (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(j) — 5 cases
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 306 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “638(1), which provides, in part: “[A]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in…”
Stewart v. Albertson's, Inc., 481 P.3d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025).
Esgate v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(k) — 5 cases
Haeger v. Johnson, 548 P.2d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
Graham v. Kold Kist Beverage Ice, Inc., 607 P.2d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Tri-West Constr. Co. v. Hernandez, 607 P.2d 1375 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Shiri Willcot v. Reg'l Acceptance Corp. (RAC) & IA Am. Warranty Corp. d/b/a IA Am. Warranty Grp. ( (D. Or. 2026).
Thompson Ex Rel. Thorp Fam. Charit. Remainder Unitrust v. Federico, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Or. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(kkk) — 2 cases
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC, 423 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “A class action for statutory damages may be maintained under the UTPA "only if the plaintiffs in the action establish that the members have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant of a method,…”
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” It also alleged what we understand to be an “induce- ment” theory of loss: “Plaintiffs and the class paid higher prices for Tillamook’s dairy products because of their understanding that the 5 ORS 646.608 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person engages in an unlawful…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(m) — 2 cases
Conner v. Delon Oldsmobile Co., 674 P.2d 1180 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Santoro v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC (D. Or. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(n) — 3 cases
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Or. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(nn) — 1 case
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC, 423 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “A class action for statutory damages may be maintained under the UTPA "only if the plaintiffs in the action establish that the members have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant of a method,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(p) — 2 cases
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Or. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(q) — 5 cases
Horton v. Nelson, 288 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “607 or ORS 646.608. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, while engaging in a common plan with Kennedy and the company, violated both statutes by inducing plaintiff to purchase a tractor that defendants never intended to deliver.”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Gemignani v. Pete, 71 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Lawson v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (D. Or. 2022).
Hancock (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(r) — 3 cases
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Or. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(rr) — 2 cases
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC, 423 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “A class action for statutory damages may be maintained under the UTPA "only if the plaintiffs in the action establish that the members have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant of a method,…”
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn., 516 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” It also alleged what we understand to be an “induce- ment” theory of loss: “Plaintiffs and the class paid higher prices for Tillamook’s dairy products because of their understanding that the 5 ORS 646.608 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person engages in an unlawful…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(s) — 6 cases
Cullen v. Inv. Strategies, Inc., 911 P.2d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Stewart v. Albertson's, Inc., 481 P.3d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Lamm v. Amfac Mortg. Corp., 605 P.2d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
Gilberto v. Walgreen Co. (D. Or. 2020).
Heino v. U.S. Ctr. for Medicare (D. Or. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(t) — 2 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
Lawson v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (D. Or. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(ttt) — 2 cases
MacQuaid v. The New York Times Co. (D. Or. 2023).
Walkingeagle v. Google LLC (D. Or. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(u) — 15 cases
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC, 423 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “A class action for statutory damages may be maintained under the UTPA "only if the plaintiffs in the action establish that the members have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant of a method,…”
BP West Coast Prods., LLP v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 396 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Horton v. Nelson, 288 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “607 or ORS 646.608. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, while engaging in a common plan with Kennedy and the company, violated both statutes by inducing plaintiff to purchase a tractor that defendants never intended to deliver.”
Swango v. Nationstar Sub1, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Or. 2018).
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “Plaintiff argued that defendants’ (and the district court’s) view as to what constitutes an ascer- tainable loss under the UTPA is too limited, noting that many of the provisions of ORS 646.608, including ones she had relied on, prohibit deception in ways that do not relate to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1)(zzz) — 1 case
Shiri Willcot v. Reg'l Acceptance Corp. (RAC) & IA Am. Warranty Corp. d/b/a IA Am. Warranty Grp. ( (D. Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(2) — 15 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.608, ORS 646.607, and ORS 646.605, which are all part of the UTPA, have been amended since then.”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 306 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “638(1), which provides, in part: “[A]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in…”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(3) — 1 case
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “19 In sum, although the phrase “material to consumer purchasing decisions” does not appear in ORS 646.608 (1)(b) or (e) when viewed in isolation, for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is necessarily implicit 19 Arguably, the absurd-results canon also comes…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(4) — 10 cases
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC, 423 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “A class action for statutory damages may be maintained under the UTPA "only if the plaintiffs in the action establish that the members have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant of a method,…”
In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Horton v. Nelson, 288 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “607 or ORS 646.608. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, while engaging in a common plan with Kennedy and the company, violated both statutes by inducing plaintiff to purchase a tractor that defendants never intended to deliver.”
BP West Coast Prods., LLP v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 396 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Stewart v. Albertson's, Inc., 481 P.3d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(5) — 1 case
Meridian Transp. Resources, LLC v. Magic Carrier Resources LLC, 518 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (D. Or. 2007).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(c)(1) — 1 case
Millennium Enter., Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or. 1999). “As defendants argue, the primary purpose of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which includes § 646.608, is to protect consumers from misleading representations regarding the source of products, thus creating a “likelihood of confusion.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(e) — 2 cases
Millennium Enter., Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or. 1999). “As defendants argue, the primary purpose of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which includes § 646.608, is to protect consumers from misleading representations regarding the source of products, thus creating a “likelihood of confusion.”
Erwin v. Tetreault, 964 P.2d 277 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(h) — 1 case
Cohen v. Carreon, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Or. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(a) — 4 cases
CollegeNet, Inc. v. Embark. Com, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2001).
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
Sanders v. Francis, 561 P.2d 1003 (Or. 1977).
Gross-Haentjens v. Leckenby, 589 P.2d 1209 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(b) — 6 cases
Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “6 Wolverton analyzed ORS 646.608 (1977), which contained the term “his business” in place of the current version’s “the person’s business.”
Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Or. 2011).
Roach v. Mead, 722 P.2d 1229 (Or. 1986).
CollegeNet, Inc. v. Embark. Com, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(c) — 1 case
Terry v. Holden-Dhein Enter., Ltd., 618 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(e) — 28 cases
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “608(1)(e), a person engages in an unlawful trade practice if, in the course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person “[r]epresents that goods * * * have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that [they]…”
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 30 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Fowler v. Cooley, 245 P.3d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “*348 The UTPA provides that “any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an…”
Feitler v. the Animation Celection, Inc., 13 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Caldwell v. Pop's Homes, Inc., 634 P.2d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(f) — 3 cases
Weigel v. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet Co., 690 P.2d 488 (Or. 1984).
Searcy v. Bend Garage Co., 592 P.2d 558 (Or. 1979).
Abrams v. Mike Salta Pontiac, Inc., 625 P.2d 1383 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(g) — 9 cases
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum, 393 P.3d 1122 (Or. 2017). “6 Wolverton analyzed ORS 646.608 (1977), which contained the term “his business” in place of the current version’s “the person’s business.”
Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Or. 2011).
Weston v. Camp's Lumber & Bldg. Supply, Inc., 135 P.3d 331 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Searcy v. Bend Garage Co., 592 P.2d 558 (Or. 1979).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(h) — 2 cases
CollegeNet, Inc. v. Embark. Com, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2001).
Volm v. Legacy Health Sys., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Or. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(i) — 1 case
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 965 P.2d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(j) — 4 cases
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
Feitler v. the Animation Celection, Inc., 13 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Riviera Motors, Inc. v. Higbee, 609 P.2d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
Abrams v. Mike Salta Pontiac, Inc., 625 P.2d 1383 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(k) — 6 cases
All-States Leasing Co. v. Ochs, 600 P.2d 899 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Fredericks v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 915 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Cullen v. Inv. Strategies, Inc., 911 P.2d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Hedrick v. Spear, 907 P.2d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
Thompson ex rel. Thorpe Fam. Charitable Remainder Unitrust v. Federico, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Or. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(m) — 2 cases
Conner v. Delon Oldsmobile Co., 674 P.2d 1180 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Riviera Motors, Inc. v. Higbee, 609 P.2d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(q) — 2 cases
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “638(1): "Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the wilful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an appropriate court to…”
Gemignani v. Pete, 71 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(r) — 1 case
Nielsen v. Myers, 90 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(s) — 6 cases
Feitler v. the Animation Celection, Inc., 13 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Commc'n Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Or. 2014).
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 252 F.R.D. 83 (D. Mass. 2008).
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 879 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Lamm v. Amfac Mortg. Corp., 605 P.2d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(t) — 7 cases
Fowler v. Cooley, 245 P.3d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “*348 The UTPA provides that “any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of willful use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608, may bring an individual action in an…”
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 17 P.3d 473 (Or. 2001).
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 965 P.2d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Searcy v. Bend Garage Co., 592 P.2d 558 (Or. 1979).
Hinds v. Paul's Auto Werkstatt, Inc., 810 P.2d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(u) — 3 cases
In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 516 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Commc'n Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Or. 2014).
BP West Coast Prods., LLP v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 396 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(l)(w) — 1 case
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 965 P.2d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(lXb) — 1 case
Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(u) — 3 cases
In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., 103 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Tate v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (D. Or. 2023).
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.