This Act ensures fair access to credit for all Americans. It prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or age. It prevents lenders from unjustly denying loans to women, people of color, or older Americans. The Act requires that applications be judged solely on financial merit, with explained decisions.

This Act protects consumers from unfair billing practices involving credit cards and lines of credit, and provides protections during disputes. Before, creditors could take actions that hurt consumers' credit until an investigation was finished. Now, consumers can quickly dispute unauthorized charges and those for undelivered goods or services.

This Act combats deceptive warranty practices by requiring companies to explain warranty terms in clear, plain language and gives consumers stronger legal tools to hold companies accountable for faulty products. Before this law, warranties often contained confusing legal jargon, leaving consumers unable to fully understand their rights.

The Court strikes down price-fixing schemes disguised as "minimum fee schedules," enabling real price competition among lawyers and other professionals. This ruling saves consumers money by preventing artificial price inflation and enabling us to shop for better rates on legal and professional services.

The Court protects consumers' right to know prescription drug prices, striking down laws that could conceal this crucial information. This enables comparison shopping for medications, potentially saving thousands in healthcare costs and emphasizing the importance of price transparency for informed consumer choices.

This is the most prevalent federal law that protects consumers from abusive, unfair, and deceptive debt collection practices. This law limits how debt collectors can contact consumers about an outstanding debt, preventing harassment by debt collectors.

The Oregon Supreme Court rules that car dealers can't trick customers by hiding information about lower prices, noting that not telling the whole truth about pricing is still a form of fraud. This decision makes it harder for businesses to play sneaky games with prices and gives consumers more protection when making big purchases.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruling states that if a product had the potential to be dangerous to a consumer, a manufacturer could still be held responsible for monetary damages, even if the product didn't cause immediate harm. This means manufacturers can't ignore potential safety problems, and consumers have more protection against product failures.

This Act safeguards consumers' money as electronic banking emerges. Previously, consumers could be held fully liable for unauthorized electronic withdrawals without recourse. The Act limits consumer liability for stolen debit cards, requires banks to investigate errors, and mandates clear disclosure of ATM fees and electronic transfer terms.

This Oregon Supreme Court decision allows for more effective enforcement of consumer protections by establishing that companies can be held accountable for all misrepresentations, even when they didn't intend to deceive consumers.  

In 1984, the Citizens' Utility Board (CUB) was created by a ballot initiative. CUB was created to represent Oregon utility consumers and their needs and interests in front of lawmaking bodies. 

This rule requires that credit contracts cannot make the consumer give up certain lawsuit rights, in order to obtain the contract. Additionally, all creditors must advise consumers who cosign for credit of their obligations, including the potential consequences if the other party doesn't pay. 

This Act amends TILA by requiring credit card companies and loan agencies to disclose all terms and fine print associated with credit cards, loans, and lines of credit. Creditors must share: APRs (annual percentage rates), credit limits, outstanding balances, renewal and cancellation privileges, attachment fees, and grace period extensions

This Act makes banks disclose annual percentage yields for consumer accounts, interest rates, minimum balance requirements, and fee schedules. This allows consumers to make an informed choice about which bank account is right for them.

This Act gives Americans the ability to restrict unwanted telemarketing, which previously included calls at any hour, repeated automated calls, and ignore stop requests. The Act created the Do Not Call Registry, which bans telephone calls before 8 AM or after 9 PM, and requires telemarketers to honor consumers' requests to stop calling.

The Court rules that federal law doesn't preempt all state law claims, crucially preserving state consumer protection laws. The Court maintains states' power to protect their citizens through consumer protection laws, even when federal regulations exist, allowing states to provide additional safeguards beyond federal minimums.

In this case, the Oregon Court of Appeals emphasizes that public policy demands that those who market products intended for consumption are responsible for any accidental injuries they may cause, ensuring maximum protection for consumers.

This Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to further protect consumer information by limiting with whom credit reporting agencies can share it. It also requires that companies that provide information to consumer reporting agencies must investigate disputed information to limit potential harm to consumers from inaccurate information.

This Act ensures privacy protections for consumer health information. Before this law, there were insufficient protections and concerns about unauthorized access to medical records, especially as records became electronic. HIPAA secures consumer health data, protects digital records, and maintains coverage during job transitions.

This act protects consumers from predatory credit repair scams, in which dishonest companies charge high fees while making false promises about fixing bad credit. The Act requires credit repair companies to clearly explain their services, bans upfront fees, and gives consumers the right to cancel contracts, protecting those rebuilding their credit.

In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court emphasizes the state's significant interest in protecting its citizens from deceptive trade practices. The court highlights that punitive damages under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) serve to punish and deter deceptive business practices, reinforcing Oregon's commitment to consumer protection.

This Act protects consumers' financial privacy by requiring financial institutions to explain their information-sharing practices, giving consumers rights concerning third-party data sharing, and mandating regular privacy notices. Before this law, financial institutions could freely share or sell customers' sensitive data.