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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632 (2026)

Enjoining unlawful trade practices; assurance of voluntary compliance; attorney fees

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

      646.632 Enjoining unlawful trade practices; assurance of voluntary compliance; attorney fees. (1) Except as provided in ORS 646.633, a prosecuting attorney who has probable cause to believe that a person is engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in an unlawful trade practice may bring suit in the name of the State of Oregon in the appropriate court to restrain such person from engaging in the alleged unlawful trade practice.

      (2) Except as provided in subsections (5) and (6) of this section, before filing a suit under subsection (1) of this section, the prosecuting attorney shall in writing notify the person charged of the alleged unlawful trade practice and the relief to be sought. Such notice shall be served in the manner set forth in ORS 646.622 for the service of investigative demands. The person charged thereupon shall have 10 days within which to execute and deliver to the prosecuting attorney an assurance of voluntary compliance. Such assurance shall set forth what actions, if any, the person charged intends to take with respect to the alleged unlawful trade practice. The assurance of voluntary compliance shall not be considered an admission of a violation for any purpose. If the prosecuting attorney is satisfied with the assurance of voluntary compliance, it may be submitted to an appropriate court for approval and if approved shall thereafter be filed with the clerk of the court. If an approved assurance of voluntary compliance provides for the payment of an amount of money, as restitution or otherwise, and if the amount is not paid within 90 days of the date the court approves the assurance, or, if the assurance of voluntary compliance requires periodic payments and if any periodic payment is not paid within 30 days of the date specified in the assurance of voluntary compliance for any periodic payment, then the prosecuting attorney may submit that portion of the assurance of voluntary compliance which provides for the payment of money to the court with a certificate stating the unpaid balance in a form which fully complies with the requirements of ORS 18.038 and 18.042. Upon submission of an assurance of voluntary compliance under this subsection, the court shall sign the assurance of voluntary compliance and it shall be entered in the register of the court and the clerk of the court shall note in the register that it creates a lien. The assurance of voluntary compliance shall thereupon constitute a judgment in favor of the State of Oregon and may be enforced as provided in ORS chapter 18. The notice of the prosecuting attorney under this subsection shall not be deemed a public record until the expiration of 10 days from the service of the notice.

      (3) The prosecuting attorney may reject as unsatisfactory any assurance:

      (a) Which does not contain a promise to make restitution in specific amounts or through arbitration for persons who suffered any ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the alleged unlawful trade practice; or

      (b) Which does not contain any provision, including but not limited to the keeping of records, which the prosecuting attorney reasonably believes to be necessary to ensure the continued cessation of the alleged unlawful trade practice, if such provision was included in a proposed assurance attached to the notice served pursuant to this section.

      (4) Violation of any of the terms of an assurance of voluntary compliance which has been approved by and filed with the court shall constitute a contempt of court.

      (5) The prosecuting attorney need not serve notice pursuant to subsection (2) of this section before filing a suit if, within two years of the filing of such suit, the person charged with the alleged unfair trade practice submitted to any prosecuting attorney an assurance of voluntary compliance which was accepted by and filed with an appropriate court. The prosecuting attorney shall in such case serve notice on the defendant in the manner set forth in ORS 646.622 for the service of investigative demands, on the 10th or earlier day previous to the filing of suit.

      (6) If the prosecuting attorney alleges that the prosecuting attorney has reason to believe that the delay caused by complying with the provisions of subsection (2) or (5) of this section would cause immediate harm to the public health, safety or welfare, the prosecuting attorney may immediately institute a suit under subsection (1) of this section.

      (7) A temporary restraining order may be granted without prior notice to the person if the court finds there is a threat of immediate harm to the public health, safety or welfare. Such a temporary restraining order shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed 10 days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the person restrained consents that it may be extended for a longer period.

      (8) The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this section. If the defendant prevails in such suit and the court finds that the defendant had in good faith submitted to the prosecuting attorney a satisfactory assurance of voluntary compliance prior to the institution of the suit or that the prosecuting attorney, in a suit brought under subsections (5) and (6) of this section, did not have reasonable grounds to proceed under those subsections, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal to the defendant. [1971 c.744 §11; 1975 c.437 §3; 1981 c.897 §77; 1989 c.745 §1; 1995 c.618 §97; 2003 c.576 §215; 2010 c.94 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 41× “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). · cites it 11× “ORS 646.632 (public enforcement); ORS 646.”
State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). · cites it 12× “638(1) because of the requirement that the loss be the "result of" wilful conduct. In any event, no such requirement that a loss be the "result" of wilful conduct exists when, as in this case, suit is brought by the state under ORS 646.”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 20× “618(2) for challenging that demand was separate from the procedure provided in ORS 646.632 for prosecuting a violation of the UTPA; if it was, it qualified as a special statutory proceeding for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). · cites it 4× “” For purposes of the UTPA, a “representation” 116 Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc. includes “any assertion by words or conduct” and also “a fail- ure to disclose a fact.”
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 17 P.3d 473 (Or. 2001). · cites it 3× “636, and attorney fees, ORS 646.632(8). Although the UTPA also authorizes lesser sanctions, we agree with plaintiff that a regulatory scheme of sanctions that includes interruption or closure of business operations provides sufficient notice to a business defendant that its…”
Garganese v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 864 P.2d 364 (Or. 1993). · cites it 11× “618(2), and the procedure for prosecuting under the Act, *187 ORS 646.632, should not be viewed as separate and distinct judicial proceedings.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001). · cites it 4× “The department argued that the proceeding was not sufficiently “separate and distinct” to qualify as a special statutory proceeding, because it was only a constituent part of a trade practices enforcement action under a related statute, ORS 646.632. In analyzing the problem, the…”
Est. of Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 135 P.3d 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Under ORS 646.632, a prosecuting attorney can bring an action against a person engaging in unlawful trade practices.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 558 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “As to attor- ney fees, we disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ assurance of voluntary compliance was unsatis- factory under ORS 646.632 and remanded for the trial court to determine, in its discretion, whether and what amount of attorney fees to award.”
Weigel v. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet Co., 690 P.2d 488 (Or. 1984). · cites it 2× “It authorizes district attorneys to seek injunctions against an unlawful trade practice, ORS 646.632, which are enforceable by statutory penalties, ORS 646.”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 532 P.3d 880 (Or. 2023). “8 ORS 646.632 provides for enforcement actions in the public interest by the state.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(1) — 9 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.632 (public enforcement); ORS 646.”
State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). “638(1) because of the requirement that the loss be the "result of" wilful conduct. In any event, no such requirement that a loss be the "result" of wilful conduct exists when, as in this case, suit is brought by the state under ORS 646.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
Garganese v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 864 P.2d 364 (Or. 1993). “618(2), and the procedure for prosecuting under the Act, *187 ORS 646.632, should not be viewed as separate and distinct judicial proceedings.”
Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 216 P.3d 852 (Or. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(2) — 11 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.632 (public enforcement); ORS 646.”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 361 P.3d 3 (Or. 2015). “” For purposes of the UTPA, a “representation” 116 Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc. includes “any assertion by words or conduct” and also “a fail- ure to disclose a fact.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 17 P.3d 473 (Or. 2001). “636, and attorney fees, ORS 646.632(8). Although the UTPA also authorizes lesser sanctions, we agree with plaintiff that a regulatory scheme of sanctions that includes interruption or closure of business operations provides sufficient notice to a business defendant that its…”
Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(3) — 2 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.632 (public enforcement); ORS 646.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(3)(a) — 3 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 558 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “As to attor- ney fees, we disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ assurance of voluntary compliance was unsatis- factory under ORS 646.632 and remanded for the trial court to determine, in its discretion, whether and what amount of attorney fees to award.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(3)(b) — 1 case
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(4) — 2 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.632 (public enforcement); ORS 646.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(5) — 3 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025).
Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assn. (Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.632(8) — 9 cases
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 646.632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.”
State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). “638(1) because of the requirement that the loss be the "result of" wilful conduct. In any event, no such requirement that a loss be the "result" of wilful conduct exists when, as in this case, suit is brought by the state under ORS 646.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 529 P.3d 939 (Or. 2023). “ORS 646.632 (public enforcement); ORS 646.”
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 17 P.3d 473 (Or. 2001). “636, and attorney fees, ORS 646.632(8). Although the UTPA also authorizes lesser sanctions, we agree with plaintiff that a regulatory scheme of sanctions that includes interruption or closure of business operations provides sufficient notice to a business defendant that its…”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 558 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “As to attor- ney fees, we disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ assurance of voluntary compliance was unsatis- factory under ORS 646.632 and remanded for the trial court to determine, in its discretion, whether and what amount of attorney fees to award.”
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.