396 P.3d 244
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- BP West Coast Products challenged OAR 137-020-0150(1)(b), a rule by the Oregon Attorney General defining “condition” for fuel-price signage and requiring disclosure of conditions on street signs, price signs, and dispensing devices.
- ORS 646.930 requires street-visible signs may display the lowest cash price and mandates that if a cash price is available only under some conditions, the sign and dispensing device must clearly state the conditions; the statute does not define “conditions.”
- The Attorney General adopted the 2010 rule revision defining “condition” as any payment method, service level, or other modifying circumstance affecting price from the lowest cash price, and required disclosure of such conditions on various signs and pumps.
- BP argued the rule exceeded the Attorney General’s delegated authority and improperly broadened what must be disclosed (i.e., would require disclosure of conditions that raise, not only qualify, the lowest cash price).
- The court reviewed the facial challenge under ORS 183.400 and considered statutory text, context, legislative history, and the Attorney General’s delegated authority under ORS 646.608(1)(u) (UTPA) and Oregon Laws 1985, ch. 751, §2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BP) | Defendant's Argument (AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of OAR 137-020-0150(1)(b) definition of “condition” | Rule exceeds AG rulemaking authority; it requires disclosure of conditions that increase prices and thus enlarges statutory scope beyond ORS 646.930 | Statute sets minimum requirements; AG may define "conditions" and prohibit other unfair or deceptive conduct under ORS 646.608(1)(u) to protect consumers | Rule valid: definition and related provisions fall within AG authority and align with statutory consumer-protection policy |
| Whether ORS 646.930 precludes AG from adopting broader signage rules under UTPA authority | Statute limits signage obligations to conditions for a cash price; AG cannot expand obligations beyond legislature’s intent | Legislature established minimums and delegated broad authority to AG to define and prohibit unfair/deceptive conduct; disclosure rules implement consumer protection purpose | No preemption: statute does not prohibit supplemental AG rules; AG properly used UTPA authority to regulate deceptive pricing disclosures |
| Proper interpretation of “conditions” in ORS 646.930(2)(b) | Should be read narrowly to mean only conditions that affect availability of the lowest cash price | Should be read to include any modifying circumstance affecting price; dictionary and legislative history support broader consumer-protection reading | Court adopts broader interpretation consistent with plain meaning, context, and history; rule’s definition matches statutory intent |
| Facial vs. as-applied challenge | BP raised facial challenge only in this case (as-applied in separate case) | AG contends rule facially valid; separate case available for as-applied disputes | Court limited to facial review and held rule facially valid; left as-applied issues to other proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or. 606 (use statutory text first to discern legislative intent)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (agency interpretations guided by plain meaning and context)
- Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or. 544 (rule cannot undermine legislative intent)
- Springfield Educ. Assn. v. Sch. Dist., 290 Or. 217 (agency may fill in inexact statutory terms via rulemaking)
- Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or. 562 (analysis whether rule departs from statutory standard)
- State ex rel Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 275 Or. App. 23 (UTPA is remedial and construed liberally to protect consumers)