The details

This case (Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Association) highlights the harms of creating demand by misrepresenting product quality and animal welfare practices. In 2019, Portland-based law firm Sugerman Dahab, Tim Quenelle, PC, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against Tillamook Creamery for a group of Oregon consumers, saying it violated Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). These consumers (the plaintiffs) said they believed they were buying products from small, coastal, family-owned farms prioritizing animal welfare because that's what Tillamook's ads and branding suggested. However, most of the milk used in Tillamook products comes from a large industrial dairy operation in Boardman, in eastern Oregon. The lawsuit alleges that Tillamook's false and misleading advertising inflated prices and harmed consumers—whether or not they personally saw or relied on the company's marketing.

Challenging precedent

A key piece of this decision hinged on the Court’s viewing of their earlier decision from a case called Pearson v. Philip Morris. The ruling in that case requires that a consumer had to prove they had relied on a company's false marketing in making their purchase decision. If a consumer can show this reliance, then they will have the grounds to sue under the UTPA. But if they didn't see the ad or it didn't play a role in what they bought, their claims to sue wouldn't hold up under the law. Companies have long looked to this case to block valid consumer claims.

However, with the Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty Ass'n court ruling, companies can no longer rely on Pearson to skirt accountability. The court writes: “Our holding in Pearson, however, does not stand for the proposition that any UTPA claim involving ‘affirmative misrepresentations’ requires proof of reliance. Nor does it stand for the proposition that an alleged loss measured by the ‘purchase price’ always requires a showing of reliance.” This sentence provides boundaries to the decision in the Pearson case, limiting it to its facts, and opening up avenues for consumers to claim their rights.

Why this matters

The narrowing of prior case law in this ruling paves the way for consumers to hold businesses accountable more readily when they attempt to profit from unlawful practices. Additionally, consumers are better positioned now to challenge unfair practices through class action efforts without the limitations of previous interpretations of the law.

Class actions are essential when many people are harmed in the same way but the cost of filing many individual cases would be too high. The Court's ruling clarifies that people harmed by false advertising don't always have to prove they personally saw or relied on the deceptive claims to have a valid case.

“This ruling is a powerful step forward for Oregon consumers to claim their rights under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act,” said OCJ Executive Director Jagjit Nagra. “OCJ is proud to have served as amici in support of the plaintiffs of this case and celebrates this win in the fight for a more fair and transparent marketplace in Oregon."

Oregon Consumer Justice (OCJ), together with the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, participated in this case as amici curiae—friends of the court. We urged the Court to recognize that false advertising and misrepresentations can hurt consumers in many ways, like inflating prices, hiding important information, or creating a false expectation of quality or shared values—and, the law should protect people from these harms, regardless of whether they saw a specific ad or marketing campaign.