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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.612 (2026)

Application of ORS 646.607 and 646.608

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

      646.612 Application of ORS 646.607 and 646.608. ORS 646.607 and 646.608 do not apply to:

      (1) Conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by a federal, state or local governmental agency.

      (2) Acts done by the publisher, owner, agent or employee of a newspaper, periodical, telephone directory or radio or television station in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, when the publisher, owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading or deceptive character of the advertisement. [1971 c.744 §10; 1977 c.195 §5; 2005 c.577 §1]

 

      646.615 [1965 c.490 §3; 1967 c.144 §1; 1967 c.599 §2; repealed by 1971 c.744 §6 (646.608 enacted in lieu of 646.615)]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1991–2003 · leading case: Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 69 P.3d 710 (Or. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 69 P.3d 710 (Or. 2003). · cites it 5× “Defendants respond, first, that ORS 646.612(1) prevents the statutory disclosure form from providing the basis for an action under the UTPA because that statute provides that the UTPA does not apply to “[c]onduct in compliance with * * * a statute administered by a federal,…”
Hinds v. Paul's Auto Werkstatt, Inc., 810 P.2d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “Policy reasons that the FTC gave for its choice in enacting its regulations do not determine the construction of ORS 646.612. The purpose of UTPA is to protect consumers from certain acts.”
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 30 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “ORS 646.612(1) provides that ORS 646.607 and ORS 646.”
State ex rel. Frohnmayer v. Freeman, 884 P.2d 878 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “In Hinds, we concluded that, short of the point that a regulatory body’s rules required a party to act inconsistently with the UTPA, the exemption in ORS 646.612(1) for “ [c]onduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by a federal, state or local…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.612(1) — 4 cases
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 69 P.3d 710 (Or. 2003). “Defendants respond, first, that ORS 646.612(1) prevents the statutory disclosure form from providing the basis for an action under the UTPA because that statute provides that the UTPA does not apply to “[c]onduct in compliance with * * * a statute administered by a federal,…”
Hinds v. Paul's Auto Werkstatt, Inc., 810 P.2d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “Policy reasons that the FTC gave for its choice in enacting its regulations do not determine the construction of ORS 646.612. The purpose of UTPA is to protect consumers from certain acts.”
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 30 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “ORS 646.612(1) provides that ORS 646.607 and ORS 646.”
State ex rel. Frohnmayer v. Freeman, 884 P.2d 878 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “In Hinds, we concluded that, short of the point that a regulatory body’s rules required a party to act inconsistently with the UTPA, the exemption in ORS 646.612(1) for “ [c]onduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by a federal, state or local…”
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.