Oregon’s automated-calling statute treats a text as a “call,” limits automated calls to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and three per subscriber in 24 hours, and requires a one-digit opt-out in prerecorded messages. Those rules sit in ORS 646A.372 and are enforced as unlawful trade practices. The private remedy runs through Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, which demands an ascertainable loss and willful conduct. That’s a high bar for a plaintiff who only received unwanted messages.
What does Oregon’s law cover?
Calls and texts made with an automatic dialing and announcing device, plus misrepresentation and caller ID spoofing by any caller.
ORS 646A.370 defines a “Call” as a contact or attempt by means of “A call on a telephone or telephone line” or “A text message.” An “Automatic dialing and announcing device” is “an automated device that selects and dials telephone numbers” and that disseminates “a prerecorded or synthesized voice or text message.” That wording targets automated message platforms directly, and it doesn’t depend on the federal autodialer test from Facebook v. Duguid.
A “Subscriber” includes someone with residential or wireless service and anyone who lives with them. An “Established business relationship” means “a previous transaction or series of transactions between a caller and a subscriber that occurred within the 18 months preceding a call,” per the definitions.
What limits apply to automated calls and texts?
Calling hours, a daily cap, an opt-out mechanism, and number-range exclusions, each with exceptions for existing customers.
Under ORS 646A.372(5), a caller using the device “may use the device to call a subscriber only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and may not call the subscriber more than three times in 24 hours.” The window closes an hour earlier than the federal rule. The statute lets a caller “rely on the area code of a telephone number for a mobile telephone to determine whether the telephone number is for a subscriber located in this state,” which gives a defined safe harbor for campaigns that schedule by area code.
For voice calls, the device must disconnect within 10 seconds after the subscriber hangs up, and the message must describe a way for the subscriber, “within the first 10 seconds after a call begins,” to enter or speak a one-digit code to stop future calls. Numbers that opted out that way must then be excluded from the dialing range.
The exceptions do a lot of work. Callers with an established business relationship, debt buyers and debt collectors, and public safety agencies are excused from the opt-out mechanism, the hours and daily cap, and the do-not-call list rule for random or sequential dialing, under the same section. The hours and cap rule also doesn’t apply to a caller that is “responding directly to a message received from a subscriber.”
What does Oregon say about identification and spoofing?
A caller using an automated device can’t misrepresent who’s calling or why, and no caller may falsify caller ID.
ORS 646A.374(2) bars a caller that uses the device from misrepresenting or falsifying, in a conversation, a recorded message, “or in any text message,” the caller’s identity and the identity of the person on whose behalf the call is made, the calling number, the location, or the purpose. Subsection (3) provides that “A caller may not intentionally alter, misrepresent or falsify the information that a caller identification service would ordinarily provide.”
Subsection (5) reaches vendors. A person that “knows or consciously avoids knowing” about a violation and “nonetheless provides substantial assistance or support for the violation” is liable to the same extent as the caller. Carriers acting as common carriers are excluded. Platforms and lead vendors aren’t, so contracts and onboarding checks matter.
Who can sue, and for what?
Mostly the Attorney General. Private plaintiffs face the Unlawful Trade Practices Act’s loss and willfulness requirements.
ORS 646A.376 makes a violation of 646A.372 or 646A.374 an unlawful trade practice subject to investigation and enforcement by the state, with a civil penalty that “may not exceed $5,000.” Violations of the spoofing and misrepresentation rules in 646A.374(2) and (3) are also listed as unlawful practices under ORS 646.608.
The private action is ORS 646.638. It is available to “a person that suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of another person’s willful use or employment of a method, act or practice declared unlawful under ORS 646.608,” and allows “actual damages or statutory damages of $200, whichever is greater,” plus possible punitive damages. A person who got unwanted texts and lost nothing will struggle with the ascertainable loss element, and the willfulness requirement adds a second hurdle.
That’s why Oregon recipients usually sue under the federal TCPA instead, where exposure is $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing. The Oregon rules still matter as evidence of practices and as a source of state enforcement.
| Oregon rule | Section | Who enforces | Key exception |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., three calls in 24 hours | 646A.372(5) | Attorney General | Established business relationship; responding to subscriber’s message |
| One-digit opt-out in prerecorded calls | 646A.372(1) | Attorney General | Established business relationship; debt collectors |
| No misrepresentation of identity or purpose | 646A.374(2) | Attorney General; private UTPA claim with ascertainable loss | None for automated callers |
| No caller ID spoofing | 646A.374(3) | Attorney General; private UTPA claim with ascertainable loss | Carrier exclusion only for vendor liability |
| Vendor liability for substantial assistance | 646A.374(5) | Same as underlying violation | Common carriers and terminating networks |
Steps to take when an Oregon claim arrives
- Preserve message logs, platform data, and consent records for the Oregon numbers involved, under a litigation hold.
- Pull opt-out records, including one-digit opt-outs captured by the dialer, with timestamps.
- Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and version dates.
- Collect scripts, recorded and text message templates, caller ID settings, and platform and lead vendor contracts.
- Have a lawyer review the claim before answering, contacting the subscriber, or offering anything.
Oregon claims usually turn on whether an exception applies and whether the claimant lost anything. More on defending robocall and text claims is available, and a recent post covers North Carolina’s solicitation law.
Questions about Oregon’s robocall and text law
Do Oregon’s hour limits apply to marketing texts?
Yes, when the texts are sent with an automatic dialing and announcing device, because the statute defines a call to include “A text message.” Automated texts to Oregon numbers should go out between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., no more than three in 24 hours, unless an exception such as an established business relationship applies.
Can a recipient sue for $200 per text?
Not easily. ORS 646.638 requires an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by the defendant’s willful violation. The $200 figure is a floor for a plaintiff who meets those requirements, not an automatic award per message.
Can a texting platform be liable for a client’s spoofing?
It can, under ORS 646A.374(5), if it “knows or consciously avoids knowing” about the violation and still provides substantial assistance. Onboarding checks, acceptable use terms, and responses to complaints are the platform’s best evidence that it didn’t.
Does the area code control which state’s law applies?
For Oregon’s hours and daily cap, the statute lets a caller rely on a mobile number’s area code to decide whether the subscriber is in Oregon. That makes area-code scheduling a defensible practice for Oregon’s limits.
Defending Oregon call and text claims
If your company has been sued or received a demand over automated calls or texts to Oregon numbers, the exceptions and the ascertainable loss requirement usually shape the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims under state robocall and texting laws. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
ORS chapter 646A (646A.370 to 646A.376); ORS chapter 646 (646.608, 646.638); 47 U.S.C. § 227.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of May 10, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.