Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn.

Plaintiff must prove they purchased the product in reliance on the alleged false marketing, pursuant to ORS 646.608 (b) and (d). A business engages in unlawful practice if it, “(b) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source of goods, and (d) uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods.”

A class action was brought against Defendant, Tillamook County Creamery Association, for violating Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) for a deceptive marketing campaign, that misleads consumers to believe Tillamook’s dairy is sourced exclusively from Tillamook County farms. Defendant motioned to dismiss the claim. Trial court granted in part and denied in part. Both parties filed interlocutory appeals. Plaintiffs assigned error to two different issues related to “reliance” upon representations of Defendant. Plaintiffs advanced three arguments to prove reliance: (1) Plaintiffs paid more for Defendant’s product because of their deceptive marketing (2) Plaintiffs bought Defendant’s product because of their deceptive marketing, and (3) Defendant’s misbranding was a “prohibited transaction”. Defendant argued, in an UTPA claim a Plaintiff must prove they purchased the product in reliance on the alleged false marketing. Reliance requires that the marketing, “(b) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source of goods, and (d) uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods.” The Court reasoned that Plaintiff’s arguments were implausible because consumers that bought Defendant’s products without relying on their marketing were not deceived and paid what they considered a fair price. Thus, Plaintiffs failed to prove a causal link between the misrepresentation and the loss to support. The court held that the trial court did not err in requiring claims to prove reliance. Dismissal affirmed; remanded.