April 13, 2022

Oregon Ban on Home Buyers' 'Love Letters' to Sellers Violates First Amendment, Federal Court Rules

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

The law (HB 2550), which took effect at the start of 2022, required sellers' agents to "reject any communication other than customary documents in a real estate transaction, including photographs, provided by a buyer." The prohibition against transmitting non-customary documents, according to the court, includes banning "love letters and any other speech beyond disclosure forms, sales agreements, counteroffers, addenda, and reports." In the court's view, a restriction on commercial speech of this scope is unenforceable under the First Amendment.


The Oregon law prohibited buyer's agents from providing seller's agents with letters written by buyers hoping to persuade sellers to accept their offers. The use of such love letters has become a common tactic to pull at sellers' heartstrings, especially in a sellers' market, where many buyers are bidding for a property (often significantly over the asking price).

The practice usually involves buyers writing about how much they love the home and how they imagine their family living there. However, these letters may include descriptive details and family photos, which could reveal protected characteristics, such as a person's race, national origin, skin color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, familial status, or marital status. The rationale for the ban was that information in these letters could be used by the seller, whether consciously or not, and create potential unlawful biases in the seller's decision-making process on whose offer to accept.

Constitutional Challenge

The real estate firm sought to have the law declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In moving for a preliminary injunction, it asserted that the law was an impermissible regulation of and interference with commercial speech. The firm argued the law's restriction of speech would lead to dissatisfied clients, unfulfilled duties to disclose known material facts, and limited abilities for buyers to compete with higher offers. While the firm agreed Oregon had a substantial government interest in preventing housing discrimination, it asserted the state's ban on "love letters" was more restrictive than necessary to achieve that goal.

Oregon asserted that the real estate firm lacked standing to challenge the law, and, even if there were standing, the law did not violate the First Amendment. Oregon argued in part that its law restricted conduct, not speech, and, thus, it did not unconstitutionally regulate speech.

However, the court disagreed with Oregon and concluded the law was an overbroad regulation of protected commercial speech.

The court first determined the real estate firm had both direct and third-party standing to challenge Oregon's law. Direct standing existed because real estate agents of the firm often drafted or edited client "love letters." Third-party standing existed because the plaintiff-real estate firm had a sufficiently close relationship with its clients whose "love letter" speech was prohibited by the law.

On the merits, the court agreed that Oregon had a substantial interest in addressing a history of housing discrimination in the state, but it found the ban went too far. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held the ban violated the First Amendment because it was overinclusive, not adequately tailored, and significantly limited truthful, non-misleading speech. Not only did the ban prohibit transmitting all non-customary documents, the court noted, but it also prohibited speech in "love letters" unconnected to protected characteristics, such as a prospective buyer's affinity for the neighborhood. Moreover, the court identified four reasonable alternatives less restrictive of speech: (1) requiring agents to redact protected characteristics from client "love letters"; (2) prohibiting inclusion of photos; (3) requiring a fair housing disclosure in real estate transactions; and (4) increasing fair housing training for real estate agents.

Accordingly, the court held Oregon's "love letter" law violated the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The preliminary injunction will remain in place until the case is fully resolved following discovery.

While the court's injunction suggests complete bans on "love letters" do not pass muster under the First Amendment, the door remains open for some regulation. For instance, each of four reasonable alternatives identified by the court would be more likely to survive a constitutional challenge.

Finally, as suggested by the ruling, real estate brokers should provide regular training to their agents and employees on housing discrimination issues and the potential for materials submitted in support of a home purchase to open the door to claims of housing discrimination.

©2022 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit


ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

Challenging OSHA Violations at Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Is Worth the Effort

By Melanie L. Paul Jackson Lewis P.C. May 26 , 2023

It is more important than ever that employers understand the serious long-term, non-monetary consequences of settling or accepting Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) citations.

New Washington Law Regulates Warehouse Distribution Center Worker Quotas

By Kathryn J. Barry Jackson Lewis P.C. May 26 , 2023

A new Washington law regulating employers’ use of production quotas or production standards for employees working at warehouse distribution centers (House Bill 1762) will go into effect on July 1, 2024.

Sixth Circuit Adopts New Standard to Decide Whether to Send Notice to Potential FLSA Opt-Ins

By David R. Golder Jackson Lewis P.C. May 24 , 2023

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled it will not use the lenient, two-step procedure in deciding whether to authorize sending notice of a collective action to other workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

More From Real Estate

Florida Passes Law Restricting Foreign Ownership of Real Estate

By Brian Donnelly McDermott Will & Emery May 16 , 2023

The Florida Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 264 (SB 264), which Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law on May 8, 2023.

European Green Directives: Seeking Clarity for the Real Estate Market

By Dr. Johann-Frederik Schuldt Greenberg Traurig April 27 , 2023

Green directives on the energy performance of buildings, including energy performance certificate (EPC) ratings in the European Union and United Kingdom, are urging the European real estate industry to assess the costs of compliance.

No Spark Here: TTAB Refuses to Register Similar Mark for Real Estate Services

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery April 27 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark due to the “close similarity” between the applied-for mark and a previously registered mark.

Featured Stories