Relating to disclosures required in connection with online transactions.
Summary
Senate Bill 430 requires online sellers of goods and services to display a price that includes all mandatory fees and charges needed to complete the transaction, with limited exceptions for government-imposed taxes and fees, actual shipping costs, and certain distance- or selection-based service fees that must still be disclosed prominently before purchase. The measure is aimed at preventing “drip pricing” or other pricing practices that advertise a lower initial price and add unavoidable charges later in the checkout process.
The bill also amends Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.608, to make a violation of the new online pricing disclosure rule an unlawful practice. It further adds the new section to the list of practices that can trigger consumer protection enforcement, and it applies only to transactions that conclude on or after the bill’s effective date. The bill includes carve-outs for financial institutions and mortgage-related entities already subject to federal disclosure laws, as well as broadband internet access providers that comply with federal broadband label and disclosure requirements.
Impact
SB 430 changes Oregon consumer protection law by creating a new disclosure requirement for online commerce and by tying noncompliance to the state’s existing unlawful trade practices framework. Businesses that sell goods or services online must now present an all-in price up front, subject to specified exceptions, and failure to do so can expose them to enforcement under ORS 646.608. The bill also clarifies that certain regulated industries, including financial institutions, mortgage lenders/brokers, and broadband providers meeting federal disclosure standards, are exempt to the extent they are already governed by those federal rules.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad overall support, as reflected in its passage in both chambers, but the recorded votes show some division. It passed the Senate committee 3-2, the Senate floor 18-11, the House committee 5-4, the House floor 35-15, and then the Senate again 18-11 in concurrence. That pattern suggests general agreement with the consumer-protection goal, alongside meaningful minority concern about the scope or implementation of the new pricing rules.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on how far the state should go in regulating online pricing and whether the bill could impose compliance burdens on businesses that use variable fees, shipping charges, or service-based pricing. The exemptions for financial institutions and broadband providers indicate an effort to avoid overlap with federal disclosure regimes, which may have been important to stakeholders in those sectors. The narrow committee margins suggest some lawmakers were concerned about the bill’s breadth, while supporters likely viewed it as a straightforward transparency measure to protect consumers from hidden fees.