# Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act — ORS 646.605 et seq.

Oregon's principal consumer-protection statute is the Unlawful
Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), codified at **ORS 646.605–
646.656**. It applies to most consumer-debt collection
practices and provides a private right of action with damages
and fees.

> **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Verify each statute against current
> ORS before relying.

## Why UTPA matters more than FDCPA in Oregon practice

The federal FDCPA applies only to **"debt collectors"** — third
parties (debt buyers, collection agencies, collection
attorneys) collecting consumer debt on behalf of someone else.
Original creditors collecting their own debt are **not** FDCPA
debt collectors (with narrow exceptions).

The Oregon UTPA applies to **all persons** engaged in consumer
trade practices, including:

- Original creditors
- Debt buyers
- Collection agencies
- Collection attorneys
- Affiliates and assignees

For debt-defense counterclaims against an **original
creditor**, the UTPA is the operative vehicle. For
counterclaims against a **debt buyer or collection agency**,
the UTPA and FDCPA both apply (and the UTPA is often more
favorable — no $1,000 cap; broader injunctive relief).

## Substantive provisions

### ORS 646.605 — Definitions

Key definitions:

- **"Person"**: very broad; includes individuals, business
  entities, debt buyers, attorneys
- **"Trade or commerce"**: very broad; includes services,
  goods, debt collection (treated as a service)
- **"Real estate, goods or services"**: includes the
  collection of consumer debt (per case law interpreting
  UTPA's scope)

### ORS 646.607 — Unconscionable tactics

Specific list of prohibited tactics in consumer transactions:

- Using high-pressure sales tactics
- Engaging in physical force or threats
- Demanding payment that the person knows is not legally owed
- Knowingly violating an order of the Attorney General
- Charging unconscionable interest
- Engaging in unconscionable conduct in the collection of
  consumer debt

For debt collection, **"demanding payment of an amount the
person knows is not legally owed"** is the workhorse
provision. Examples that trigger:

- Collecting on a time-barred debt without disclosing the SOL
  expiration
- Collecting interest above the contractual or statutory rate
- Collecting attorney fees not authorized by the contract
- Collecting a balance inflated by improper fees

### ORS 646.608 — Unlawful trade practices catalog

A long list of specific unlawful practices. Most relevant for
debt collection:

- (1)(e) — passing off or representing goods/services as
  those of another
- (1)(s) — making false or misleading statements in connection
  with offering services
- (1)(t) — concurrent use of false statements
- (1)(u) — engaging in any other unfair or deceptive conduct

The catch-all (1)(u) is broadly applied. **Misrepresenting the
character, amount, or legal status of a debt** is the most
common UTPA debt-collection violation, particularly under
(1)(s) and (1)(u).

### ORS 646.638 — Private right of action

The core enforcement provision:

#### ORS 646.638(1) — Cause of action

Any person who suffers an "ascertainable loss of money or
property, real or personal," as a result of another person's
unlawful trade practice may bring an action.

The "ascertainable loss" element is interpreted liberally —
includes overpayment, time spent disputing, costs of
remediation, and (per recent decisions) emotional distress in
some circumstances.

#### ORS 646.638(2) — Remedies

The court may award:

- **Actual damages** OR **$200 statutory minimum** — whichever
  is greater
- **Punitive damages** when warranted
- **Equitable relief** (injunction, declaratory relief,
  rescission)
- **Costs and disbursements**

#### ORS 646.638(3) — Attorney fees

**Mandatory** for the prevailing party. The court must award
reasonable attorney fees, with the standard calculated under
ORS 20.075 / lodestar (see `or-law-references/references/fees-
and-costs.md`).

This is a powerful provision for debt-defense — winning even
one UTPA claim entitles the consumer to fees that may exceed
the underlying debt amount.

#### ORS 646.638(4) — Class actions

UTPA class actions are available; class certification under
*Pearson v. Philip Morris*, 358 Or 88 (2015).

#### ORS 646.638(6) — Statute of limitations

- **1 year from discovery** of the violation
- **6-year repose** from the date of the violation, regardless
  of discovery

### ORS 646.643 — Other remedies

The Attorney General may bring an action; civil penalties up to
$25,000 per violation.

## How UTPA interacts with FDCPA

For a debt-defense counterclaim against a third-party debt
collector, both statutes apply. Strategic considerations:

| Comparison | FDCPA | UTPA |
|------------|-------|------|
| Who is liable | "Debt collectors" only | "Any person" |
| Damages cap | $1,000 statutory | No cap; punitive available |
| Fees | Mandatory (1692k(a)(3)) | Mandatory (646.638(3)) |
| SOL | 1 year from violation | 1 year from discovery / 6-year repose |
| Class actions | Yes ($500K cap) | Yes (no cap) |
| Equitable relief | Limited | Broad |
| Original creditor | Not covered | Covered |

For a debt-buyer plaintiff, pleading both:

```
COUNTERCLAIM I — FDCPA (15 USC § 1692e, § 1692f, § 1692g)

[Allegations of false representations, unfair practices,
failure to provide validation]

COUNTERCLAIM II — Oregon UTPA (ORS 646.605 et seq.)

[Same factual allegations, framed as UTPA violations under
ORS 646.607 (unconscionable tactics — demanding payment
not legally owed) and 646.608(1)(s)/(u) (false statements;
unfair conduct)]
```

Both can be pled in the answer (ORCP 22 compulsory
counterclaim if arising from the same transaction).

## UTPA standing — *Denson* doctrine

The Oregon Supreme Court in *Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo*
(verify recent cite — this is a key 2010s decision) addressed
UTPA standing. Key holdings:

- The "ascertainable loss" requirement is interpreted broadly
- Time spent resolving the issue may qualify
- Out-of-pocket expenses (postage, copying, attorney
  consultation) may qualify
- Emotional distress may qualify in some circumstances

For debt-defense counterclaims, "ascertainable loss" is
typically:

- Wages paid to opposing counsel to defend a baseless suit
- Time spent disputing
- Lost wages from court appearances
- Medical / mental-health expenses if applicable

## UTPA in debt-buyer cases — specific applications

### Misrepresenting amount owed

A debt buyer demanding an inflated balance (due to improper
fees, post-charge-off interest, or wrong account
identification) violates ORS 646.607 (demanding payment not
legally owed) and ORS 646.608(1)(s) (false statement).

### Collecting on time-barred debt

A debt buyer suing on a debt past the 6-year SOL violates ORS
646.608(1)(s) (false statement about the legal status of the
debt). The FDCPA and Reg F also forbid this; UTPA parallels.

### Failure to register

A debt buyer that is unregistered with DCBS under ORS 697.015
is engaging in "unlawful trade practice" by collecting in
Oregon — ORS 646.608(1)(u) (any other unfair or deceptive
conduct).

### False chain-of-title claims

A debt buyer that alleges ownership of an account it cannot
prove (no bill of sale; defective assignment) is making a
false representation under ORS 646.608(1)(s).

## Drafting UTPA counterclaims

### Required elements

1. **Defendant is a "person" within the UTPA** (ORS 646.605)
2. **Defendant engaged in "trade or commerce"** (debt
   collection qualifies)
3. **Defendant committed an unlawful trade practice** (cite
   specific subsection)
4. **Plaintiff [counter-defendant] suffered ascertainable
   loss of money or property**
5. **Loss caused by the unlawful practice**

### Sample counterclaim

```
COUNTERCLAIM II — Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act
                  (ORS 646.605 et seq.)

19. Defendant/Counter-Defendant [Velocity Investments, LLC]
    is a "person" within the meaning of ORS 646.605, and
    its collection of consumer debt is "trade or commerce"
    within the meaning of ORS 646.605.

20. Defendant engaged in the following unlawful trade
    practices in connection with the collection of the
    alleged consumer debt:

    (a)  Demanded payment of an amount Defendant knew was
         not legally owed by Plaintiff/Counter-Claimant, in
         violation of ORS 646.607(3);

    (b)  Made false or misleading representations of fact
         regarding the character, amount, and legal status
         of the alleged debt, in violation of ORS
         646.608(1)(s) and 646.608(1)(u);

    (c)  Engaged in unconscionable conduct in the collection
         of consumer debt, in violation of ORS 646.607.

21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful
    trade practices, Plaintiff/Counter-Claimant suffered
    ascertainable loss of money and property, including
    [enumerate — time, postage, attorney consultation, lost
    wages, etc.].

22. Plaintiff/Counter-Claimant is entitled to actual
    damages, or $200 statutory damages whichever is greater,
    punitive damages, equitable relief, costs, and
    attorney fees under ORS 646.638.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Counter-Claimant prays for:

A.  Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, or
    statutory damages of $200, whichever is greater;
B.  Punitive damages;
C.  Equitable relief, including a declaration that the
    alleged debt is not owed and an injunction against
    further collection;
D.  Costs and reasonable attorney fees under ORS 646.638(3);
E.  Such other relief as the Court deems just.
```

## Common UTPA-counterclaim pitfalls

| Pitfall | Consequence |
|---------|-------------|
| Pleading "FDCPA-only" against original creditor | Original creditor not covered by FDCPA; need UTPA |
| Generic "unfair practices" without subsection | Insufficient specificity under fact pleading (Granewich) |
| No "ascertainable loss" allegation | Standing failure under Denson |
| Pleading punitive damages without facts | Punitives require specific factual showing |
| Missing the 1-year SOL from discovery | UTPA claim time-barred |
| Forgetting the mandatory-fees prayer | Procedural waiver of fees under ORS 646.638(3) |

## Cross-references

- `or-consumer-debt` SKILL — main bundle
- `references/fdcpa.md` — federal companion claims
- `references/fees-consumer-debt.md` — fee mechanics
- `or-law-references/references/or-ors-debt/ORS-646.md`
  (when populated) — verbatim ORS 646 text
- `or-law-references/references/online-sources.md` — current
  ORS URL