Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) provides a consumer with a remedy when they have been subjected to unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair tactics by a company. While the majority of UTPA cases involve considerable economic damages, Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act was drafted so that businesses could not get away with stealing even the smallest amounts of money from consumers. The Unlawful Trade Practices Act allows someone to sue even if they have not lost money. The Oregon statute has a statutory damage provision and allows the consumer to also seek punitive damages in a UTPA case.
The UTPA allows the consumer to recover for unconscionable tactics of a business that:
- takes advantage of a customer’s physical infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy or inability to understand the language of the agreement;
- permits a customer to enter into a transaction from which the customer will derive no material benefit; or
- Permits a customer to enter into a transaction with knowledge that there is no reasonable probability of payment of the attendant financial obligation in full by the customer when due.
The UTPA prohibits written or spoken misrepresentations and tactics of the following nature:
- Using deceptive representations in connection with real estate, goods or services.
- Advertising real estate, goods or services with the intent not to provide them as advertised.
- Making false or misleading representations of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.
- Making false or misleading representations concerning the nature of the transaction or obligation incurred.
- Performing service on or dismantling any goods or real estate when not authorized by the owner or apparent owner thereof.
- Promising to deliver real estate, goods or services within a certain period of time with the intent not to deliver them as promised.
- Making false or misleading representations of fact concerning the offering price of, or the person’s cost for real estate, goods or services.
- Causing the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of real estate, goods or services.
- Engaging in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.
A consumer who successfully brings a claim under the UTPA may be awarded attorney fees. An action under the UTPA must be commenced within one year from the date of the unlawful trade practice, or the date the consumer reasonably should have discovered the violation of the act.
Consumer Protection (UTPA) — Past Case Example #1
C.K. wanted to buy a sports car. One day his fiancé saw an ad for a used Mazda RX7 in a newsstand circular for a sales price of $18,999. The finance manager prepared documents for the sale of the car. The deal involved a trade-in and C.K. left the lot that night in the RX7 sports car, leaving his trade-in behind. Shortly thereafter, C.K. received a telephone call that a different financing company would be used, and that C.K. needed to come in to sign new papers. He was told there were no changes to the documents other than the name of the finance company. C.K. swung by the dealership to sign the new documents and left. The next evening, C.K.’s friend noticed the new documents on the kitchen counter. The sales price of the car was now shown as $21,999. C.K. immediately called the finance manager and asked about the new $21,999 price. The finance manager said that he had to manipulate the trade-in value and rearrange numbers for financing, but assured C.K. that the sales price of the car remained at $18,999. A couple of months later, C.K. went to get the vehicle refinanced with a credit union. At that time, the credit union loan officer informed C.K. that the price of the car was actually $21,999. C.K. left the credit union and drove to the dealership to confront the finance manager. The finance manager replied, “You signed it, you read it.” C.K. then informed Rob Stevens that he was going to call his lawyer. He called Kafoury & McDougal who sued the dealership under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and recovered the $3,000 price difference, $62,000 in punitive damages and attorney fees.
Consumer Protection (UTPA) — Past Case Example #2
Jill Tieu: Failure to provide available merchandise for the advertized price. Jill Tieu and her family went to a Best Buy store in response to an advertisement for computer monitors on sale, with a “limit of one per customer.” She and her family bought three monitors, along with a number of other expensive electronic items. Upon leaving, they were stopped and harassed by the manager, despite making it clear to him that they were appropriately responding to the store’s own ad campaign. Nonetheless, they were berated and humiliated in front of other customers and were not allowed to keep what they had previously purchased. Prior to trial, they settled for an undisclosed amount.