Oregon Payment Portal Law 2026: Landlords Can't Make Electronic Payment the Only Way to Pay Rent

The law doesn't ban payment portals; it bans making an electronic-only method the sole way to pay.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

A landlord can keep offering a portal as a convenient option; the compliance requirement is making sure checks or another commercially reasonable non-electronic method remain genuinely available alongside it, not phased out in practice.

The statute requires landlords to accept checks or other commercially reasonable payment methods as an alternative to electronic-only options.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

Checks are explicitly named as a compliant method; beyond that, the full scope of what else counts as commercially reasonable isn't fully detailed in the sources available for this article, so a landlord considering a payment method beyond standard checks should confirm it meets this standard before relying on it as the sole non-electronic option.

A landlord can only charge a third-party payment-processing fee when the processor itself permits that pass-through, a non-electronic payment method remains available, and the landlord can produce records of that fee upon written request.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

All 3 conditions have to be met together; a landlord who satisfies 2 of the 3, such as keeping a check option available and having records ready, but uses a processor whose terms don't actually allow passing the fee to tenants, is still out of compliance on that specific charge.

Landlords using a portal for rental applications have to offer a printable version of the application on their website and respond to a written request for a paper or emailed application within 7 days.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

That 7-day response window is a concrete deadline; a landlord who takes longer than a week to provide a non-portal application format after a tenant requests one has missed this requirement, even if the portal itself was never technically unavailable.

Beyond the application itself, applicants can't be forced to use the portal exclusively for identity verification, signing lease addenda, or submitting supporting documents.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

A landlord whose process technically accepts a paper application but then requires every subsequent step, such as identity verification or signing an addendum, to happen through the portal anyway hasn't actually met the spirit or the letter of this requirement.

Tenants need at least one way to access dwelling entrances and common areas that doesn't require a software login, such as a physical key, fob, key card, or door code.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

A building that switched entirely to an app-based entry system, with no fallback physical access method, is out of compliance under this provision regardless of how reliable that app normally is.

Refusing to accept a legally permitted payment method can result in the landlord forfeiting late fees and losing the ability to pursue a nonpayment termination that originated from that refusal.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

A landlord who rejects a tenant's check payment because "we only take portal payments now," and then tries to charge a late fee or begin an eviction for nonpayment, risks losing both the late fee and the termination action specifically because the underlying refusal violated this law.

A violation of the application or payment rules allows the affected party to recover actual damages or $100, whichever is greater.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

That $100 floor means even a tenant who can't point to a specific financial loss from a violation still has a statutory damages figure to recover, which gives this rule real teeth even in cases where actual harm is hard to quantify.

Since an improper payment-method refusal can cost a landlord both the late fee and the termination action tied to it, payment-acceptance practices and eviction procedures aren't separate compliance areas under this law; they're directly linked.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

A landlord initiating a nonpayment eviction should specifically confirm the underlying payment refusal, if any occurred, didn't itself violate this law before proceeding, since that history could undermine the termination.

A landlord or property management company using an integrated portal system for payments, applications, and building access needs to verify each of these 3 areas separately against this law's requirements, since compliance in one area doesn't guarantee compliance in another.

[Cite: S.L. 2026 ch. 23]

A system that handles payment alternatives correctly but still requires portal-only identity verification for new applicants, or portal-only building entry, is only partially compliant.

The practical starting point is auditing every portal-dependent process, payment, applications, and building access, separately to confirm a genuine non-portal alternative exists and is actually offered, not just nominally available.

For any payment-processing fee currently passed through to tenants, confirming all 3 conditions, processor permission, an available non-electronic option, and ready fee documentation, are actually met protects that charge from being challenged.