Relating to unlawful practices in home solicitation sales; and prescribing an effective date.
Summary
House Bill 3605 updates Oregon’s consumer protection and home solicitation sales laws by expanding the list of business practices that are treated as unlawful practices under the state’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The bill amends ORS 83.990 and ORS 646.608 to add a new violation category for certain home solicitation sales provisions and to incorporate violations of ORS 83.710 to 83.750 into the unlawful-practice framework. It also makes a technical change clarifying that a failure to comply with the home solicitation sales statutes can be corrected within 10 days after written notice, avoiding penalties if the defect is timely cured.
The bill’s broader effect is to strengthen enforcement against deceptive, unfair, or noncompliant sales conduct by tying more conduct to the remedies and enforcement tools available under Oregon’s consumer protection laws. Because violations of ORS 646.608 can trigger civil enforcement and other consequences, the bill gives regulators and private parties a clearer basis to challenge certain home solicitation sales violations as consumer fraud or deceptive trade practices. It also preserves existing penalties for willful violations of the underlying retail installment and home solicitation provisions.
HB 3605 appears to have been generally well received in the Legislature. It passed the House committee 8-1, the House floor 51-4, the Senate committee 5-1, and the Senate floor 24-4, indicating broad bipartisan support with a small number of dissenting votes at each stage. The lack of committee transcripts suggests there was not a large public record of extended debate in the materials provided.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s expansion of what counts as an unlawful practice, since that can increase exposure for sellers, contractors, and other businesses engaged in door-to-door or home solicitation sales. Some lawmakers may have been concerned about adding more statutory violations to the consumer protection statute or about the compliance burden on businesses, while supporters likely viewed the measure as a straightforward consumer-protection and enforcement update. Overall, the vote pattern suggests the Legislature viewed the bill as a targeted anti-deception measure rather than a major policy shift.
Impact
HB 3605 amends Oregon’s home solicitation sales and consumer protection statutes by adding violations of ORS 83.710 to 83.750 to the list of unlawful practices under ORS 646.608 and by clarifying enforcement and cure provisions in ORS 83.990. This expands the reach of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act to cover additional home solicitation conduct, potentially exposing violators to attorney general enforcement, civil remedies, and related consumer-protection consequences. The bill affects sellers, door-to-door marketers, and other businesses subject to the home solicitation sales laws, while preserving a 10-day correction window for certain noncompliance after written notice.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around HB 3605 was favorable and bipartisan. It advanced through both chambers with strong majorities and only a handful of no votes, suggesting broad agreement that the bill addresses deceptive or noncompliant sales practices. The vote margins indicate support for stronger consumer protections, even if some members were reluctant to broaden the scope of the unlawful-practice statute.
Contention
The likely area of disagreement was whether violations of the home solicitation sales statutes should be folded into the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which can increase enforcement risk and legal exposure for businesses. Opponents may have viewed the bill as expanding liability or adding regulatory burden for sellers and contractors who conduct door-to-door or in-home sales. Supporters, by contrast, likely saw the change as a necessary consumer-protection measure to deter misleading practices and improve compliance. The small number of dissenting votes in committee and on the floor suggests the contention was limited rather than central.