Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850

Background

Plaintiff Daniel N. Gordon and his law firm represent creditors in large-volume consumer credit‑card debt collection litigation; DOJ investigated numerous consumer complaints and served a civil investigative demand.
DOJ’s review found many default judgments, instances of alleged misstatement or lack of proof of contracts, incorrect choice‑of‑law/interest application, and collection of attorneys’ fees/interest without adequate evidentiary support.
DOJ proposed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance requiring clearer validation notices, limiting recovery of attorneys’ fees by default judgment, and forbidding collection of time‑barred debt; plaintiffs refused and sued for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs sought declarations that ORS 646.607(1) and ORS 646.608(1)(b) (UTPA) and the UDCPA (ORS 646.639) do not apply to their litigation practices; trial court granted judgment and a permanent injunction for plaintiffs on UTPA and on UDCPA.
On appeal, the court reviewed statutory construction and controlling precedent to decide whether the UTPA and UDCPA apply to plaintiffs’ debt‑collection litigation and whether the permanent injunction was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 646.607(1) (unconscionable tactics) applies to plaintiffs’ debt‑collection litigation	Gordon: UTPA targets consumer transactions and examples of "unconscionable tactics" refer to a person’s own customer, so statute cannot reach third‑party litigation conduct	DOJ: Text, context, and legislative history show unconscionable tactics in debt collection are covered even when actor is not the original creditor	Held: ORS 646.607(1) can apply to plaintiffs’ debt‑collection litigation; trial court erred to the extent it held otherwise
Whether ORS 646.608(1)(b) (likelihood of confusion as to source/sponsorship) applies to plaintiffs’ litigation conduct	Gordon: Legal representation is separate from the creditor’s goods/services; statute shouldn’t reach lawyer‑defended debt collection on clients’ behalf	DOJ: No statutory requirement that unlawful practice be about actor’s own goods/services; third‑party misrepresentations that confuse consumers fall within the UTPA	Held: ORS 646.608(1)(b) can apply to plaintiffs’ debt‑collection litigation; trial court erred to the extent it held otherwise
Whether UDCPA (ORS 646.639) provisions (2)(k), (m), (n) apply to plaintiffs’ litigation practice	Gordon: Oregon precedent limits UDCPA to non‑litigation collection; filing lawsuits or demanding fees in litigation is not prohibited by those subsections	DOJ: Plaintiffs’ pattern (filing without evidentiary basis, seeking unauthorized fees via default) fits (k),(m),(n) and thus violates UDCPA	Held: UDCPA subsections (2)(k), (2)(m), (2)(n) do not apply to plaintiffs’ litigation activities; trial court’s judgment for plaintiffs on UDCPA stands
Whether permanent injunction barring DOJ enforcement under the UTPA was proper	Gordon: Injunction necessary to prevent DOJ from regulating litigation practice via UTPA enforcement	DOJ: Injunction improper because UTPA may apply to plaintiffs’ conduct and DOJ must be able to enforce it	Held: Permanent injunction reversed because UTPA can apply to plaintiffs’ challenged conduct

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (statutory construction framework applied)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (statutory interpretation principles)
Wolverton v. Stanwood, 278 Or 341 (UTPA scope; transaction‑connection discussion)
Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 59 Or App 166 (UTPA claims may arise from third‑party representations)
Porter v. Hill, 314 Or 86 (UDCPA (2)(k) — filing suit is not the prohibited enforcement of a nonexistent right)
Hedrick v. Spear, 138 Or App 53 (UDCPA (2)(n) — Porter rationale extended to attempted collection of unauthorized fees)
Pro Car Care, Inc. v. Johnson, 201 Or App 250 (UDCPA claims against demand letters/litigation threats; discussion of (k),(m),(n) applicability)