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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.885 (2026)

Use of terms in advertisement containing price comparison

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

      646.885 Use of terms in advertisement containing price comparison. (1) The use of terms such as “regular,” “reduced,” “sale,” “usually,” “originally,” “clearance,” “liquidation” and “formerly” shall identify the origin of the price that the seller is comparing to the seller’s current price as the seller’s own former price, or in the case of introductory advertisements, the seller’s future price.

      (2) Unless the seller states otherwise in the advertisement, use of terms such as “discount,” “_____ percent discount,” “$_____ discount,” “_____ percent off” and “$_____ off” shall be considered to identify the origin of the price that the seller is comparing to the seller’s current price as the seller’s former price, or in the case of introductory advertisements, the seller’s future price. [1987 c.626 §4]

 

      646.886 [2003 c.290 §1; renumbered 646A.200 in 2007]

 

      646.887 [2003 c.290 §2; 2003 c.803 §28; renumbered 646A.202 in 2007]

 

      646.888 [2003 c.290 §3; 2003 c.803 §29; renumbered 646A.204 in 2007]

 

      646.889 [2003 c.290 §5; renumbered 646A.206 in 2007]

 

      646.890 [1979 c.254 §1; 1981 c.897 §84; renumbered 646.868 in 2003]

 

      646.892 [1993 c.58 §1; 1995 c.631 §2; renumbered 646A.210 in 2007]

 

      646.893 [1995 c.631 §1; renumbered 646A.212 in 2007]

 

      646.894 [1993 c.58 §2; 2003 c.312 §1; renumbered 646A.214 in 2007]

 

      646.895 [1987 c.888 §1; renumbered 646A.220 in 2007]

 

      646.897 [1987 c.888 §2; renumbered 646A.222 in 2007]

 

      646.899 [1987 c.888 §§3,4; 2003 c.290 §4; renumbered 646A.230 in 2007]

 

      646.901 [1989 c.206 §1; renumbered 646A.232 in 2007]

 

VEHICLE FUELS

 

(Definitions)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2025 · leading case: McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 4× “ORS 646.885 In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated ORS 646.”
Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “) But according to the UTPA, 24 Eddie Bauer must provide the origin of any such reference price, Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.885 (2). An 25 opaque reference to a “comparable value” does not meet this requirement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.885(1) — 1 case
McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025). “ORS 646.885 In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.885(2) — 1 case
McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC (D. Or. 2025). “ORS 646.885 In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 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.