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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.720 (2026)

Action against information provider for failure to comply with law; remedies; customer liability for charges

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

      759.720 Action against information provider for failure to comply with law; remedies; customer liability for charges. (1) Any customer, telecommunications utility or local exchange carrier who suffers damages from a violation of ORS 646.608, 646.639 and 759.700 to 759.720 by an information provider has a cause of action against such information provider. The court may award the greater of three times the actual damages or $500, or order an injunction or restitution. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this section.

      (2) The court may not award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section if the action under this section is maintained as a class action pursuant to ORCP 32.

      (3) When an information provider has failed to comply with any provision of ORS 646.608, 646.639 and 759.700 to 759.720, any obligation by a customer that may have arisen from the dialing of a pay-per-call telephone number is void and unenforceable.

      (4) Any obligation that may have arisen from the dialing of a pay-per-call telephone number is void and unenforceable if made by:

      (a) An unemancipated child under 18 years of age; or

      (b) A person whose physician or naturopathic physician substantiates that:

      (A) The person has a mental or emotional disorder generally recognized in the medical or psychological community that makes the person incapable of rational judgments and comprehending the consequences of the person’s action; and

      (B) The disorder was diagnosed before the obligation was incurred.

      (5) Upon written notification to the information provider or the billing agent for the information provider that a bill for information delivery services is void and unenforceable under subsection (2) or (4) of this section, no further billing or collection activities shall be undertaken in regard to that obligation.

      (6) The telecommunications utility or local exchange carrier may require the customer to take pay-per-call telephone blocking service after the initial obligation has been voided. [1991 c.672 §4; 1993 c.513 §1; 1995 c.696 §49; 2017 c.356 §102]

 

UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1992–2017 · leading case: Curzi v. Oregon State Lottery, 398 P.3d 977 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Curzi v. Oregon State Lottery, 398 P.3d 977 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “780(4) (stating that the court may not award certain fees or costs to a prevailing defendant if the action is “maintained as a class action pursuant to ORCP 32”); 10 ORS 759.720(2) (stating that the court may not award attorney fees to a defendant if the action “is maintained as…”
Porter v. Hill, 838 P.2d 45 (Or. 1992). ““(o) Threaten to assign or sell the debtor’s account with an attending misrepresentation or implication that the debtor would lose any defense to the debt or would be subjected to harsh, vindictive or abusive collection tactics. “(3) It shall be an unlawful collection practice…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.720(2) — 2 cases
Curzi v. Oregon State Lottery, 398 P.3d 977 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “780(4) (stating that the court may not award certain fees or costs to a prevailing defendant if the action is “maintained as a class action pursuant to ORCP 32”); 10 ORS 759.720(2) (stating that the court may not award attorney fees to a defendant if the action “is maintained as…”
Porter v. Hill, 838 P.2d 45 (Or. 1992). ““(o) Threaten to assign or sell the debtor’s account with an attending misrepresentation or implication that the debtor would lose any defense to the debt or would be subjected to harsh, vindictive or abusive collection tactics. “(3) It shall be an unlawful collection practice…”
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.