Is it illegal for a store to advertise a product and then never sell it?
<p>Suppose (Store) is planning to sell (Product) at price $N. (Store) puts up a display inside the store for (Product), say an image and a price tag. (Product) is correctly listed as out of stock and (Store) never accepts any orders, preorders, or money for (Product). After three months of trying unsuccessfully to get stock, (Store) decides to give up and pulls (Product) from the shelves.</p>
<p>(Customer) saw the display and really wanted to buy (Product) from (Store) for $N. Does (Customer) have any claim or recourse against (Store)?</p>
<p>Does it matter if (Product) was available in other stores or just never produced at all?
Does it matter if other stores have (Product) but charge more than $N?</p>
<p>Just for the record, this is not a reference to any actual product or store.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Does (Customer) have any claim or recourse against (Store)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. The store's conduct altogether preempts a finding of <em>unconscionable tactics</em>. The store's conduct would not be found in violation of Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). See <a href="https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors646.html" rel="noreferrer">ORS 646.605(9) <em>et seq</em></a>.</p>
<p>(I am not verifying the multitude of cross-references in the UTPA, but the language of explicit items gives a general idea of what types of conduct the statute sanctions)</p>
<p>The store's decision to decline orders, preorders or money for the product impliedly alerts customers not to grow premature expectations on acquiring the product. Also the store's disclaimer of <em>out of stock</em> weakens a customer's possible allegation that customer relied on a promise of availability of the product. Accordingly, the store prevents a customer from credibly arguing that he incurred losses <em>as a result</em> of the store's conduct.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does it matter if (Product) was available in other stores or just never produced at all? Does it matter if other stores have (Product) but charge more than $N?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. The fact that the store [unsuccessfully] attempted to get stock indicates that the shortage --and hence the failure to supply the product-- is not <em>willful</em>. This implies that the matter is not actionable even if the customer &quot;<em>suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property</em>&quot;. See ORS 646.605(10) and .638.</p>
<p>That being said, it is noteworthy 646.683(8)(a) lowers the requirement of <em>willfulness</em> [of violation] to one of <em>recklessness</em> in the context of class actions.</p>

united-states commerce oregon