Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01

Section 1345.01's definitions cover a boat buyer as a consumer, the seller as a supplier, and the sale as a consumer transaction.

Borror v. Marinemax of Ohio, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-9-2007) · filed 2007-02-09

It is undisputed that, as defined by R.C. 1345.01 , Borror was a consumer, appellant was a supplier, and the sale of the boat to Borror was a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.01(A) treats an agreement to provide a banquet room, food, and service for a wedding reception as a consumer transaction.

Bierlein v. Alex's Continental Inn, Inc. · filed 1984-02-27(A)

We recognize that the renting of a banquet hall for the purposes of providing food and service at a festivity such as a wedding reception necessarily entails providing both a sale and a service. The food provided for the guests as indicated on the menu provided by the defendant requires the sale of such food. The set up, service during, and a clean up after the reception, as well as providing the room itself, constitutes the providing of a service. Hence, we have a consumer transaction as defined in the Act.

Section 1345.01’s definitions of consumer transaction and supplier bring a used car dealer’s sale to a consumer within the Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Schneider v. Miller · filed 1991-09-20(A), (C)

Pursuant to the definitions contained in R.C. 1345.01(A) and 1345.01(C), appellee is subject to the provisions contained in R.C. Chapter 1345.

Section 1345.01(A) covers a pyramid participant’s payment for a chance to receive money when the participant acts for personal rather than business purposes.

State Ex Rel. Celebrezze v. Howard · filed 1991-09-26(A)

Despite some discussion in other cases which tend to call pyramidal participation “investing,” we believe that it is more properly categorized as gambling- or an award by chance, thereby placing it squarely within the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) includes solicitation to supply goods within a consumer transaction, so a sale need not be completed.

McDonald v. Datsun · filed 1989-01-23(A)

The term “consumer transaction” was defined in R.C. 1345.01(A) as “* * * a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, franchise, or an intangible * * * to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things.” It is not necessary that a sale actually take place. ... In this case, Bedford’s actions in negotiating its sale's agreement amounted to solicitation. Accordingly, the Consumer Sales Practices Act is applicable.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions entered into for commercial purposes from its definition of a consumer transaction.

Kremen v. Ohio Expositions Commission · filed 1996-09-11(A)

The court finds that R.C. 1345.01 is inapplicable under the facts of this case. ... It is clear to the court that plaintiffs entered into the transaction for commercial purposes, not for personal, family, or household purposes.

Medical-record copying arranged by a lawyer as a client’s agent for a personal injury claim is a consumer transaction when the client authorizes the service and bears its cost.

Mermer v. Medical Correspondence Services · filed 1996-11-22(A)

Appellants hired WJLG to represent them in their personal injury claims, gave WJLG express authorization, in its representative capacity, to obtain appellants’ personal medical records to provide evidentiary support for their claims, and agreed to ultimately assume the costs for the services. Accordingly, appellants, through their agent, WJLG, were consumers in regard to the transactions in question, and the purpose of the transaction, restoration of appellants to their preinjury status, was primarily personal in nature.

Section 1345.01(A) includes transfers of goods or services for personal use within consumer transactions even when no money changes hands.

Williams v. Edwards · filed 1998-07-17(A)

Further, the fact that no money changed hands has no bearing on the applicability of the CSPA in this case. R.C. 1345.01(A)’s definition of consumer transaction itself includes not only “sales” of goods or services, but also “other transfers.” Thus, we believe that the nature of the consideration involved in a particular transaction is immaterial to a determination of whether the transaction is a consumer transaction within the meaning of the CSPA.

A statutorily mandated vehicle bailment can be a consumer transaction for services even though the owner did not voluntarily enter it.

Estep v. Johnson · filed 1998-08-06(A)

In the present case, the bailment of appellant’s automobile, albeit statutorily mandated and not a voluntary transaction on the part of appellant, falls within the definition of a “consumer transaction” for services as defined in the Act.

A trailer manufacturer qualifies as a supplier even when a dealer makes the sale, and providing and performing warranty work is a service covered as a consumer transaction.

Miner v. Jayco, Inc., Unpublished Decision (8-27-1999) · filed 1999-08-27(A), (C)

In the present case, Jayco was the manufacturer of the trailer at issue and as such was engaged in the business of effecting a consumer transaction, i.e. the sale of that trailer. As a result of the sale of that trailer through its agent, Jayco received some consideration. In addition, by providing the warranty as part of the consumer transaction at issue, and by providing and performing the warranty work, Jayco provided a service which came within the CSPA. Accordingly, the CSPA applies to both the sale of the trailer and the provision of warranty work.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes commercial self-storage leases from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Conkey v. Eldridge, Unpublished Decision (12-2-1999) · filed 1999-12-02(A)

Because these leases are commercial, they are excluded from the definition of a "consumer transaction" under R.C. 1345.01 (A).

Section 1345.01(A) defines a consumer transaction to include a sale of goods to an individual for primarily personal purposes.

Buskirk v. Harrell, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2000) · filed 2000-06-28(A)

R.C. 1345.01 (A) defines a "consumer transaction" as a sale of goods to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal.

Section 1345.01(A) covers sales of services as well as goods.

Roelle v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Unpublished Decision (11-7-2000) · filed 2000-11-07(A)

The act applies to sales of services as well as goods. R.C. 1345.01 (A).

A vehicle repair arrangement between a consumer and a supplier is a consumer transaction covered by the CSPA.

Smith v. Stacy, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2001) · filed 2001-06-19(A), (C), (D)

The record establishes that appellee was indisputably a consumer for purposes of the act under R.C. 1345.01 (D), because her dealings with appellant, a supplier under R.C. 1345.01 (C), were a "consumer transaction" as defined by R.C. 1345.01 (A). Therefore, as the trial court properly concluded, the CSPA applies to this case.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions with physicians from the definition of consumer transaction, but does not clearly exclude transactions between hospitals and consumers.

Summa Health System v. Viningre · filed 2000-12-27(A)

While transactions with physicians are exempted from the CSPA, a transaction between a service provider such as a hospital and the consumer is not clearly exempted.

A consumer transaction includes a dealer's transfer of possession of a vehicle to a consumer, even without a completed sale.

Braucher v. Mariemont Auto, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2002) · filed 2002-06-28(A)

A consumer transaction is defined as "a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods * * *." 4 (Emphasis added.) Here, the transfer of the Dodge from Mariemont Auto, a dealer, to Braucher constituted a consumer transaction because there was a transfer of possession of a consumer good.

A car owner who primarily uses the car and deals with the repair shop is a consumer, and the repair services are a consumer transaction.

Croskey v. Leach, Unpublished Decision (10-18-2002) · filed 2002-10-18(A), (D)

The trial court concluded that Croskey was a consumer under R.C. 1345.01 (D), and that the automobile repair services that the Leaches had provided to Croskey were a consumer transaction under R.C. 1345.01 (A). The record supports these conclusions, as Croskey was the owner and primary user of the car being repaired and had many dealings with the Leaches concerning those repairs. Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that R.C. Chapter 1345 applied to this case.

Section 1345.01 excludes transactions between dealers in intangibles and their customers from the definition of consumer transaction.

Pratt v. North Dixie Manufactured, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2003) · filed 2003-05-09(A)

R.C. 1345.01 excludes from the definition of "consumer transaction" any transaction between persons defined in sections 4905.03 and 5725.01 of the Revised Code, and their customers. R.C. 5725.01 provides definitions for "financial institution," "dealer in intangibles," "insurance company," "domestic insurance company," and "foreign insurance company." It was undisputed that Greenpoint is a dealer in intangibles, and is therefore exempt from direct liability under the OCSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions with dealers in intangibles from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Martin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · filed 2005-03-16(A)

Furthermore, as mentioned, GMAC is a dealer in intangibles, and thus, a consumer transaction could not have occurred. R.C. 1345.01(A) defines what constitutes a “consumer transaction;” exempted from the definition are transactions between persons defined in R.C. 5725.01, i.e., “dealers in intangibles.” Consequently, R.C. 1345.03 has no application to GMAC.

Section 1345.01(A) defines a consumer transaction, which a plaintiff must allege to state a claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Kafele v. Frank & Wooldridge Co. · filed 2004-08-17(A)

Moreover, Kafele’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief under both the FDCPA and the OCSPA because he did not allege the existence of a consumer debt or transaction within the meaning of those acts. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) requires a transfer from a supplier to an individual for a consumer transaction; a shopper’s unilateral removal of unpaid goods does not qualify.

Riley v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005) · filed 2005-12-30(A)

Because we conclude that the plain language of the OCSPA contemplates a transfer from a supplier to a purchaser, and because the undisputed evidence shows that Riley unilaterally removed the cat treats from the store without payment, Riley cannot show that there was a "transfer," and thus a "consumer transaction," as required under the Act.

Section 1345.01(A) requires a sale or transfer of goods from a seller to a consumer; taking goods without payment or the owner's consent is not a consumer transaction.

Riley v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005) · filed 2005-12-30(A)

Thus, existing Ohio law clearly provided that there could not be a "consumer transaction" under the OCSPA where someone has taken an item without providing any consideration or payment for it and the owner has not consented to or otherwise participated in the transfer.

Section 1345.01(A) requires a consumer transaction to involve an individual, meaning a natural person rather than a corporation.

Culbreath v. Golding Enterprises, LLC, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2006) · filed 2006-05-25(A)

An individual for the purposes of a consumer transaction in the OCSPA is a natural person, not a corporation.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes vehicles used primarily for business purposes from the CSPA's definition of a consumer transaction.

Lecso v. Toyota of Bedford, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-20-2005) · filed 2005-12-20(A)

The Consumer Sales Practices Act applies to "consumer transaction" that include the sale of an item of goods or services to an individual "for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household." ... Lecso testified that she primarily used the vehicle (95% of the time) for business purposes, thus the CSPA does not apply.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between dealers in intangibles and their customers from the definition of consumer transaction, even when the dealer sells repossessed goods.

Columbus Mtge., Inc. v. Morton, 06ap-723 (6-19-2007) · filed 2007-06-19(A)

We agree with the reasoning of the Haines court and affirm the trial court's determination herein that the CSPA does not apply to the transaction in the present case because R.C. 1345.01 (A) provides a clear and unambiguous exemption for transactions involving dealers in intangibles and their customers.

A tennis association that solicits individuals and provides league services is a supplier engaged in consumer transactions under the CSPA.

McPhillips v. United States Tennis Assn. Midwest, 2006-L-187 (7-13-2007) · filed 2007-07-13(A), (C), and (D)

In the case at bar, we agree with appellant that the parties engaged in a "consumer transaction," since appellees provide a "service" to "consumers," "solicit" individuals, and are "suppliers." See R.C. 1345.01 (A), (C), and (D).

Section 1345.01 treats a tennis league’s provision of services to solicited members as a consumer transaction.

McPhillips v. U. S. Tennis Assn. Midwest, 2006-L-235 (7-13-2007) · filed 2007-07-13(A), (C), and (D)

In the instant matter, we agree with appellee that the parties engaged in a "consumer transaction," since appellants provide a "service" to "consumers," "solicit" individuals, and are "suppliers." See R.C. 1345.01 (A), (C), and (D).

A consumer transaction under Section 1345.01(A) must involve an individual, meaning a natural person rather than a business entity.

Culbreath v. Golding Enterprises, L.L.C. · filed 2007-09-05(A)

Therefore, we hold that, as used in R.C. 1345.01(A), “individual” means “natural person.”

Section 1345.01(A) excludes a settlement exchanging a release of legal claims for money from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Charvat v. Dish Tv Now, Inc., 07ap-759 (4-29-2008) · filed 2008-04-29(A)

Even assuming that Charvat and Dish TV entered into a settlement agreement, that agreement did not constitute a consumer transaction. The alleged settlement agreement did not transfer any product to Charvat, the purported consumer. Rather, it was a contract whereby Charvat agreed to release his legal claims and to execute a confidentiality agreement for a $38,200 payment. The payment of money is not a good, service, franchise or an intangible.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between attorneys from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Burdge v. Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2006) · filed 2006-09-05(A)

A consumer transaction "does not include * * * transactions between attorneys." R.C. 1345.01 (A). A review of appellant's complaint reveals that his fourth and fifth causes of action are based entirely upon conduct occurring between appellant's counsel and appellee's counsel. Thus, appellant failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted under the CSPA in his fourth and fifth causes of action.

A person who does not engage in a sale or other transfer of goods to an individual is not a supplier in a consumer transaction.

Barnett-Mccurdy v. Hughley, 90467 (9-25-2008) · filed 2008-09-25(A), (C)

Furthermore, RC and Bevelacqua did not engage in any "sale . . . or other transfer of an item of goods . . . to an individual," so they were not "suppliers" in a "consumer transaction" under the CSPA. See R.C. 1345.01 (A) and (C) and 1345.02 .

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between a dealer in intangibles and its customers from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan · filed 2010-09-28(A)

Accordingly, as Ford presented uncontradicted evidence that it qualifies as a “dealer in intangibles,” appellants’ CSPA claims against Ford must fail.

Section 1345.01(A) includes television advertisements that urge viewers to respond to an offer within the definition of a consumer transaction.

Ferron v. Dish Network, L.L.C. · filed 2011-10-11(A)

R.C. 1345.01(A) defines “consumer transaction” to include a “solicitation to supply” goods or services to an individual for personal or household use. ... Applying the common meaning of solicitation, we conclude that offers made within such advertisements constitute solicitation under the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) generally excludes transactions between customers and utilities or natural gas suppliers from the definition of consumer transactions.

Saks v. E. Ohio Gas Co. · filed 2012-06-14(A)

Furthermore, the CSPA generally excludes transactions between a utility (i.e., Dominion) or a company supplying natural gas (i.e., Integrys) and its customers from the scope of “consumer transactions” covered by the statute.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between financial institutions and their customers from the definition of consumer transactions.

Clark v. Lender Processing Services, Inc. · filed 2013-06-07(A)

Similarly, here, each of the underlying foreclosures was filed on behalf of a financial institution (i.e. a national bank) for loans between that institution and Plaintiffs. These transactions are excluded from the OCSPA’s definition of “consumer transactions.”

Section 1345.01(A) uses “individual” to mean a natural person.

Caley v. Glenmoor Country Club, Inc. · filed 2013-11-04(A)

Therefore, as used in R.C. §1345.01(A), “individual” means “natural person.”

A purchase is a consumer transaction when the buyer’s stated intended use at the time of agreement shows a primarily personal purpose.

Hubbard v. Aase Sales, LLC · filed 2018-06-11(A)

A "consumer transaction" is "a sale * * * of an item of goods * * * to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household." R.C. 1345.01(A). ... The objective manifestations of Hubbard establish his purchase of the 1963 Porsche was for personal purposes.

Section 1345.01(A) treats a vehicle repair service offered to an individual for personal purposes by a supplier as a consumer transaction.

Ottney v. Al Sobb's Auto & Truck Frame Serv., Inc. · filed 2018-10-05(A)

It is undisputed that appellees are “engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions,” R.C. 1345.01(C), and this transaction was a consumer transaction, as defined by R.C. 1345.01(A), because it involved the offering of a service to an individual for personal purposes by a seller engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes veterinary medical treatment from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Ratcliff v. Seitz · filed 2014-10-03(A)

Additionally, the definition of “consumer transaction” does not include “transactions between veterinarians and their patients that pertain to medical treatment.” See R.C. 1345.01(A). Because the services at issue are not covered under the foregoing definition, we do not find that Dr. Brauer’s medical treatment qualifies as a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.01(A) includes a solicitation to supply goods for primarily personal, family, or household use within a consumer transaction, even if no sale occurs.

Weaver v. J. C. Penney Co. · filed 1977-08-18(A)

From this language, it is apparent that under the Consumer Sales Practices Act it is not necessary that a sale actually take place before a supplier may be held liable to a consumer for deceptive acts.

Section 1345.01(A) does not treat a landlord’s report of a tenant’s alleged debt to a credit agency as a consumer transaction.

Oak Hill Investment Co. v. Jablonski · filed 1992-03-13(A)

Oak Hill’s reporting to a credit agency does not constitute a transfer of a good, service, franchise or intangible, for purposes that are primarily personal, family or household.

Section 1345.01(A) includes sales to individuals for primarily personal, family, or household purposes within the definition of consumer transactions.

Karst v. Goldberg · filed 1993-06-29(A)

This transaction clearly falls within the purview of CSPA. CSPA applies to “consumer transactions,” which are defined to include “a sale * * * to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things.” R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) limits consumer transactions to sales or leases to individuals for primarily personal, family, or household purposes.

Telmark, Inc. v. Schierloh · filed 1995-05-26(A)

The Consumer Sales Practices statutes in Ohio deal only with a sale or lease of an item “to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household.” R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between persons defined in R.C. 4905.03 and their customers from the definition of consumer transaction.

Haning v. Rutland Furniture, Inc. · filed 1996-09-30(A)

We find that in its transactions with Haning and Stephenson, Rutland was a person defined in R.C. 4905.03. Haning and Stephenson were Rutland’s customers in these transactions. Therefore, the Rutland-Haning and Rutland-Stephenson transactions were not consumer transactions as defined in R.C. 1345.01(A). Accordingly, the Consumer Sales Practices Act does not apply.

Section 1345.01(A) can cover goods transferred for personal, family, or household use even when buyers are also encouraged to resell goods.

State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Purchase Plus, Unpublished Decision (4-25-2002) · filed 2002-04-25(A)

The facts as alleged in the complaint, construed in favor of appellant, show that a transfer of an item of goods for purposes that were primarily personal, family or household did occur. The complaint alleges that Associates were encouraged to use the products. The fact that the Associates were also encouraged to sell at least fifty percent of the products does not take the entire case out of the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) limits consumer transactions to those primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; the parties’ objective conduct at the time of agreement determines whether a transaction qualifies.

Gugliotta v. Morano · filed 2005-05-25(A)

Consumer transactions are defined as “a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things.” R.C. 1345.01(A). ... In response, the court announced its general rule that the determination as to whether or not a consumer transaction has been entered into between the parties “will be based upon the objective manifestations of the parties, as set forth by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transactions” at the time the parties entered into a binding agreement. ... We agree and find that this sound logic results in fundamental fairness while operating in accordance with the spirit of the CSPA. ... As a result, reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion — namely, that Morano’s claims against Gugliotta/SAI pursuant to the general provisions of the CSPA must fail.

Section 1345.01(A) includes a solicitation to sell dental services to an individual for personal, family, or household purposes within the definition of a consumer transaction.

Charvat v. Ryan · filed 2006-07-20(A)

Under this definition, appellees’ TCPA violations constitute violations of the CSPA because the violations arose out of a solicitation to an individual for the sale of dental services, which are services that are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

A sale of goods to a business for resale is not a consumer transaction because it is not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Holm v. Berner, 06-Ca-140 (6-29-2007) · filed 2007-06-29(A)

Further, Holm testified that he understood that the items would be resold by Berner's. Therefore, Holm was the seller, not the buyer, and the sale of the goods by Holm to Berner's was not for purposes that were primarily personal, family, or household. Rather, Berner's, the buyer, purchased the goods for resale.

A solicitation to supply an award by chance is a consumer transaction only if the award is for primarily personal, family, or household purposes.

Ferron v. Zoomego, Inc. · filed 2008-05-07(A)

However, we can find no direct or inferential allegation in his Complaint that any email solicitations to supply an award by chance were for primarily personal, family, or household purposes. Thus, while Plaintiff may have sufficiently alleged in his Complaint that the email messages were solicitations, and that the solicitations were to supply an “award by chance” to an individual, Plaintiff did not allege that the award by chance was “for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household” as required to satisfy the definition of a “consumer transaction” under the OCSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) defines a consumer transaction to include supplying a service to an individual for primarily personal, family, or household purposes.

Alexander v. Snow Automotive Repair · filed 2013-04-18(A)

The Auto Title defendants did not provide “a service” to Alexander for a “personal, family, or household” purpose. The Act therefore did not apply to the Auto Title defendants relative to Alexander.

Section 1345.01(A) requires a consumer transaction to be for primarily personal, family, or household purposes; repairs to a truck used primarily for business do not qualify.

Devine v. Calanni Enterprises, 90840 (10-2-2008) · filed 2008-10-02(A)

We note that to qualify as a consumer transaction, R.C. 1345.01 (A) requires that the sale or service must be for personal, family, or household purposes. ... Thus, reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion: the Dodge truck was not used primarily for personal purposes as required by law to bring a CSPA claim.

Section 1345.01(A) requires a transaction between the consumer and the supplier for a consumer transaction to exist.

Flex Homes, Inc. v. Ritz-Craft Corp. of Michigan, Inc. · filed 2010-06-18(A)

Accordingly, the Complaint does not contain facts sufficient to support the existence of a “transaction” between the Greens and Citadel that could be characterized as a “consumer transaction” for purposes of the OCSPA. Therefore, the Greens’ OCSPA claim against Citadel fails as a matter of law and is DISMISSED.

A warranty claim that results in the transfer of a replacement household product can be a consumer transaction even if the claimant did not purchase the original product.

Nee v. State Industries, Inc. · filed 2013-10-31(A)

We find that reasonable minds could conclude that Nee was a “consumer,” that State Industries was a “supplier,” and that they were involved in a “consumer transaction” within the meaning of CSPA with respect to Nee’s 2009 warranty claim and his receipt of the FVIR replacement water heater.

A transaction can qualify as a consumer transaction when its purpose is personal, family, or household, even if the consumer also hopes to profit.

Barrett-O'Neill v. LALO, LLC · filed 2016-03-22(A)

However, the statutory test is not whether the consumer hopes to realize some profit in connection with the transaction but whether the purpose for entering into the transaction was personal, familial, or household.

An OCSPA claim must allege facts supporting that the transaction was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; merely calling it a consumer transaction is insufficient.

Harper v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. · filed 2019-08-01(A)

Thus, we find appellants failed to allege sufficient facts to support essential elements of their claims under the FDCPA and the OCSPA — i.e., the consumer nature of the underlying transaction.

Excavation work contracted for an individual’s personal horse barn is a consumer transaction under Section 1345.01(A).

Nelson v. Powers · filed 2020-03-23(A)

The greater weight of credible evidence supports the magistrate’s conclusion that appellants contracted with Ms. Nelson, personally. Pursuant to statute, appellants were suppliers to a consumer transaction with Ms. Nelson, a consumer.

Section 1345.01 defines a consumer transaction as a qualifying transfer or solicitation for personal, family, or household purposes, and a supplier as a person in the business of effecting or soliciting such transactions.

Logan v. Access Ohio, L.L.C. · filed 2021-09-16(A), (C)

But the complaint's description of Mr. Logan's interactions with Faith Mission does not conform to the CSPA's definition of a "consumer transaction," nor does its description of Access Ohio fit with the CSPA's definition of a "supplier." See R.C. 1345.01(A) (defining a "consumer transaction" as "a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things") and R.C. 1345.01(C) (defining a "supplier" as "a seller, lessor, assignor, franchisor, or other person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions").

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between insurance companies and their customers from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Becker v. Cardinal Health, Inc. · filed 2021-10-26(A)

As to the first category of transactions, appellants do not allege Cardinal Health had any connection to their transactions with their health insurance companies. Indeed, the CSPA specifically excludes transactions between insurance companies and their customers from the definition of "consumer transaction."

Section 1345.01(A) excludes home construction service contracts from consumer transactions, but that exclusion does not cover remodeling contracts.

Beder v. Cerha Kitchen & Bath Design Studio, L.L.C. · filed 2022-12-12(A)

However, with the enactment of the HCSSA, the definition of “consumer transaction” was amended to exclude “transactions involving a home construction service contract as defined in section 4722.01 of the Revised Code * * *.” R.C. 1345.01(A). ... Accordingly, “home construction service” does not encompass remodeling. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that the HCSSA applied rather than the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) generally excludes transactions between financial institutions and their customers from the OCSPA’s definition of a consumer transaction.

Truist Bank v. Eichenberger · filed 2023-03-14(A)

Mr. Eichenberger thus failed to allege or present any evidence of a “consumer transaction” on which an OCSPA violation could be based. See R.C. 1345.01(A). As a result, we reject Mr. Eichenberger’s arguments that are grounded in the flawed premise that Truist Bank is subject to liability under the OCSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes a sale to a limited liability company from the definition of a consumer transaction, even when an individual uses the purchase for personal purposes.

Greer v. Finest Auto Wholesale, Inc. · filed 2020-08-05(A)

Thus, even viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to Dr. Greer and Cortex Television, LLC, we can only conclude that Finest Auto sold the vehicle to Cortex Television, LLC. Cortex Television, LLC is indisputably not an individual as set forth in Culbreath. Consequently, the sale of the vehicle was not a consumer transaction and the trial court did not err in concluding that Dr. Greer could not recover against Finest Auto pursuant to the CSPA.

Section 1345.01 determines whether a service is for primarily personal, family, or household purposes by the purchaser’s purpose; the service may also benefit third parties.

Wells v. Right Choice Contracting, L.L.C. · filed 2026-01-15(A), (C)

In other words, it is the motivation of the purchaser for obtaining the good or service that is determinative of its purpose under the statute and not the motivation of the supplier in selling the good or service. ... The plain language of the statute does not contain any requirement that the services rendered by a supplier be for the sole benefit of the consumer. ... Based on the above, we find that Bowman was a supplier, Wells is a consumer, and the transaction between them constituted a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.01(A) requires a consumer transaction to be primarily for personal, family, or household use.

Munger · filed 2026-05-05(A)

To allege a violation of the CSPA, the transaction must have been for purposes that are primarily for personal, family, or household use. (O.R.C. §1345.01(A)). Plaintiffs’ first pleading deficiency is that there are no allegations that the tools were bought for personal use.

Section 1345.01 covers a private school's supply of educational services to students as a consumer transaction.

Malone v. Academy of Court Reporting · filed 1990-12-31

Defendants' contention that the Consumer Sales Practices Act is not applicable because the legislature never intended it to apply to regulated professional schools, is not well-taken. The statute is applicable by its own terms. The school supplied services to consumers in a consumer transaction and plaintiffs have alleged facts of unfair or deceptive acts or practices under R.C. 1345.02. ... Plaintiffs have stated claims for violations of both R.C. 1345.01 and R.C. 1345.23(B).

The CSPA definitions can cover a public university’s provision of a professional education program to a student.

Krueck v. Youngstown State Univ. · filed 2019-08-12

Courts have “recognize[ed] that the [CSPA] is applicable to relationships between a student and a regulated professional school because the school is a ‘supplier’ of services to a student ‘consumer’ in a ‘consumer transaction’ as those terms are defined by R.C. 1345.01.” ... Given the issue before the court in Bungard, as well as the more analogous case law cited above, we disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that the CSPA was inapplicable.

University enrollment can qualify as a consumer transaction under § 1345.01(A).

Miranda v. Xavier University · filed 2022-03-28(A)

Accordingly, the Court cannot dismiss Plaintiff’s OCSPA claim simply because Defendant is a university.

A contract to install windows at a customer's income property is a consumer transaction under § 1345.01, with the customer a consumer and the installer a supplier.

Sinkfield v. Strong · filed 1987-01-26(A), (C), (D)

With regard to the matters under discussion here, the court concludes that the plaintiff and the defendant are, respectively, a “consumer” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(D) and a “supplier” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(C). Further, the contract itself is a “consumer transaction” contemplated by R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) covers residential gas leak repair services as a consumer transaction.

Martin v. Bullinger · filed 1988-01-15(A)

Because this transaction does not fall within those transactions expressly-excluded in R.C. 1345.01(A), we must conclude that the services rendered to appellant fall within the plain meaning of the statute.

Section 1345.01(A) covers tax planning services aimed at reducing an individual’s personal income tax liability, even when the plan includes a home-based business.

Hofstetter v. Fletcher · filed 1988-10-14(A)

Finally, defendants argue that their activities do not fall within the definition of a “consumer transaction” because they did not involve the sale of goods or services “to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household.” Defendants argue that their services were directed at plaintiffs home-based business and thus were not provided for her “personal use.” This argument is without merit. It is clear that the defendants’ tax planning program was directed at reducing the plaintiff’s personal income tax liability and was explained to her as such. The creation and operation of a home-based business was merely incidental to the overall goal of eliminating her personal tax liability.

Section 1345.01 covers a homeowner’s garage construction agreement as a consumer transaction, with the contractor as supplier and the homeowner as consumer.

Daniels v. True · filed 1988-12-09

The defendant is a “supplier” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(C); the plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(D); and the agreement between the parties is a “consumer transaction” as contemplated in R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) treats the solicitation and transfer of a promotional gift as a consumer transaction even when connected to a real estate sale.

Brown v. Liberty Clubs, Inc. · filed 1989-09-06(A)

We find that under a plain reading of the language of R.C. 1345.01(A), the solicitation and transfer of the steak knives to appellants constituted a “consumer transaction.”

Section 1345.01(A)’s definition of “consumer transaction” excludes residential leases.

Heritage Hills, Ltd. v. Deacon · filed 1990-02-21(A)

In order to ascertain whether appellant is entitled to the relief under the preceding subsection, it is necessary to determine whether a residential lease agreement constitutes a “consumer transaction” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(A). ... Accordingly, we hold that R.C. Chapter 1345 (Consumer Sales Practices Act) does not apply to residential lease transactions.

Section 1345.01’s definitions encompass a residential-care facility’s commercial billing practices, as distinct from professional medical treatment.

Elder v. Fischer · filed 1998-07-24

While the above decisions held that governmental regulation of professional conduct precludes a medical malpractice claim wrapped in the guise of consumer fraud from being asserted under a consumer-protection statute, none of the cases went so far as to exclude commercial business practices. At issue in this case are the billing practices of a residential-care facility. There are no allegations concerning medical treatment or the rendering of any “professional” service. Therefore, we sustain the residents’ first assignment of error.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes pure real estate transactions from the definition of a consumer transaction; a verbal representation about adjacent green space is not a covered service.

Rose v. Zaring Homes, Inc. · filed 1997-09-19(A)

We thus expressly decline to hold that Wells’s verbal representations about the green space constituted a service covered by the Consumer Act. Therefore, we find no consumer transaction.

Section 1345.01(A) includes a homeowner's agreement for garage repair services within the definition of a consumer transaction.

Yates v. Masters, Unpublished Decision (12-6-2002) · filed 2002-12-06(A)

A "consumer transaction" is defined as any "sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods * * * to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household[.]" R.C. 1345.01 (A). ... In the present case, the transaction falls within the definition of a "consumer transaction" for services as defined in the Act.

Section 1345.01(A)'s definition of a consumer transaction excludes construction of a new home as a real estate transaction.

Kanu v. George Development, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2002) · filed 2002-11-22(A)

Under Ohio law, the CSPA is not applicable to pure real estate transactions. ... In the present case, appellants' CSPA claims were all related to the construction of a new home, and, therefore, were not covered by the CSPA.

A pure real estate sale is not a consumer transaction under § 1345.01(A) when the seller performs no personal services for the buyer, even if the buyer's builder must pay marketing fees.

Worshil v. Smythe Cramer Co., Unpublished Decision (9-10-2001) · filed 2001-09-10(A)

We, however, find that the Consumer Sales Practices Act is not applicable since the transaction in this matter was a pure real estate transaction. ... Under the language of the agreement, there were no personal services to be performed by appellees for appellants.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes closing services that are part of a real estate transaction from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Hanlin v. Ohio Builders and Remodelers, Inc. · filed 2002-05-29(A)

This Court concludes that the closing services provided by Defendant Equicredit were part and parcel of the real estate transaction and thus Equicredit cannot be held liable under the CSPA for actions performed in rendering those services.

Section 1345.01(A) defines a consumer transaction by its primarily personal, family, or household purpose; evidence of business use and payment from a commercial account can support finding that home improvements fall outside the definition.

Perason v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2004) · filed 2004-06-16(A)

R.C. 1345.01 (A) provides, "`Consumer transaction' means a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things." ... On this record, we cannot overturn the trial court's judgment that the Act was inapplicable based on the conflicting evidence and testimony adduced at trial.

An auction transaction involving only real estate, with no personal property or services, is not a consumer transaction.

Colburn v. Baier Realty Auctioneers, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2003) · filed 2003-12-05(A)

We, however, conclude that the CSPA is not applicable since the transaction in this matter was a pure real estate transaction. Appellants signed a purchase agreement agreeing to auction off the Cortland property through an absolute auction. Further, under the language of the agreement, there were no personal services to be performed by appellees for appellants. Therefore, the CSPA is inapplicable.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes a pure real estate transaction from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Ruschau v. Monogram Properties, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2005) · filed 2005-12-12(A)

The CSPA defines "consumer transaction" as "a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things." R.C. 1345.01 (A). ... The transaction between appellee and appellants in this case, however, was a pure real estate transaction; there was no transfer or assignment of a good or service. Thus the trial court did not err when it found the CSPA inapplicable.

Section 1345.01(A) covers home improvement agreements for siding, roofing, and windows as consumer transactions.

Teeters Construction v. Dort · filed 2006-12-13(A)

R.C. 1345.01(A) defines “consumer transactions” as a “sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things.” The agreements between plaintiff and defendants constituted “consumer transactions” pursuant to this definition.

Before the 2007 amendment, § 1345.01(A) excluded transactions with a mortgage dealer in intangibles from the CSPA’s definition of consumer transactions.

Zanni v. Stelzer · filed 2007-11-26(A)

However, under the plain language of the CSPA, one who engages in the business of buying or selling mortgages qualifies as a “dealer in intangibles” and is exempt from the act. Since we find that Summertyme constituted a dealer in intangibles, we also must conclude that Summertyme did not engage in any “consumer transactions.”

Section 1345.01(A) excludes real estate transactions, including escrow services tied solely to a real estate sale, from CSPA claims.

Pettrey v. Enterprise Title Agency, Inc. · filed 2006-12-19(A)

Moreover, CSPA claims do not apply to real estate transactions. ... Escrow services are a collateral service solely associated with the sale of real estate and are thus considered a pure real estate transaction.

Under the pre-2007 version of § 1345.01(A), mortgage broker services to borrowers are consumer transactions covered by the CSPA.

Guth v. Allied Home Mtg. Capital, Ca2007-02-029 (7-7-2008) · filed 2008-07-07(A)

A "consumer transaction" is "a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things." R.C. 1345.01 (A). ... Appellees, as mortgage brokers, provide services to their clients and are subject to the relevant provisions of the CSPA.

A consumer transaction must be primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; a property purchase for investment does not qualify.

Harwood v. Bpj Investments Co., Inc., 91832 (5-14-2009) · filed 2009-05-14(A)

In any case, the CSPA applies only to transactions for purposes that are primarily personal, family or household. Appellant purchased this property for an investment, not for personal, family, or household purposes. Therefore, the CSPA does not apply here, and Potz was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim.

A land-improvement contract is a consumer transaction when the buyer’s objective intent at contracting shows a primarily personal, family, or household purpose, even if the property also earns rental income.

J & D Rack Co., Inc. v. Kreimer · filed 2011-05-18(A)

Based on the Kreimers’ objective intent at the time of contracting, we hold that the lake project was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Although the property on which the lake was situated produced rental income for the Kreimers, the family reserved much of the land for their own recreational use, and they even used the lake while the rental house was occupied.

Section 1345.01(A) does not treat a warranty about the condition of a lot sold with a completed home as a service that makes the sale a consumer transaction.

Booth v. Duffy Homes, Inc., 07ap-680 (10-9-2008) · filed 2008-10-09(A)

Upon review, we conclude that Duffy Homes' warranty about the quality and condition of the lot, as part of an otherwise pure real estate transaction, does not constitute a warranty to perform services, actionable under the CSPA. ... Because the Booths' CSPA claim did not involve a consumer transaction, as defined by R.C. 1345.01 (A), the trial court did not err in granting Duffy Homes' motion for summary judgment on that claim.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes the sale of an existing home from the CSPA’s definition of a consumer transaction; a related warranty or repair agreement does not bring the sale within the Act.

Delutis v. Ashworth Home Builders, Inc., 24302 (3-11-2009) · filed 2009-03-11(A)

The CSPA applies to a "consumer transaction," which is defined in R.C. 1345.01 (A) to include "a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things." ... The DeLutises have failed to demonstrate that reasonable minds could have concluded that their claims against Ashworth were based on a contract to provide services that fell within the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes services solely associated with a real estate sale from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Milner v. Biggs · filed 2013-04-01(A)

In holding that the services at issue are associated with a pure real-estate transaction and are therefore not covered by OCSPA, our conclusion sits comfortably with other decisions by Ohio courts interpreting OCSPA’s real-estate exception.

An OCSPA claim must allege facts showing that the challenged transaction falls within the statute’s coverage.

Bihn v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. · filed 2013-10-30(A)

Bihn’s OCSPA claim as to FTMC must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because Bihn has failed to allege enough facts to show that the OCSPA even applies to FTMC, and further fails to allege enough facts which constitute a violation of the statute.

Section 1345.01 covers a home remodeling transaction between a construction company and its customer even when they have a longstanding personal relationship and proceed informally.

Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire · filed 2014-06-30(A), (C), (D)

Therefore, Sterling is a supplier as that term is contemplated in the CSPA. Alikre agreed to pay Sterling to perform remodeling services, and paid Sterling $40,000 for those services. Therefore, Alkire is a consumer as set forth in the statute. The fact that Kohli and Alkire knew each other for over 30 years does not change Sterling's designation as a supplier and Alkire's designation as a consumer, nor does the relationship remove the transaction from the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) covers a recreational membership that conveys rights to use facilities and services without transferring an interest in real property.

Knighten v. Erie Islands Resort & Marina · filed 2016-09-30(A)

A consumer transaction is defined as “a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other transfer of an item of goods, a service, franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are ... primarily personal, family, or household, or solicitation to supply any of these things.” R.C. 1345.01(A). ... Insofar as the agreement specifically states that it conveys no interest in real property, we cannot say that it is a real estate transaction. We, therefore, find that the CSPA applies.

A service provided to a lender in a foreclosure lawsuit does not qualify as a consumer transaction.

Glazer v. Chase Home Fin., L.L.C. · filed 2013-12-19(A)

The lost note affidavit was a service provided for Chase in the foreclosure lawsuit and, therefore, cannot fall under the definition of a “consumer transaction.”

Section 1345.01(A) covers adding a swimming pool and improving a deck at an existing home as a consumer transaction, rather than excluding the work as a home construction service contract.

Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc. · filed 2023-01-26(A)

We find the addition of the swimming pool and improvement of the existing concreate deck at Tomlinson's home was an improvement to an already-existing home. Accordingly, we find the transaction covered by the CSPA and not the HSCCA.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions involving home construction service contracts from the definition of consumer transaction.

Orion Mgt., Inc. v. Kaeka · filed 2025-03-26(A)

Because their transaction involved a home construction service contract, it was not a consumer transaction. See R.C. 1345.01(A). Accordingly, only the HCSA applied to it.

Section 1345.01(A) covers a roof replacement contract as a consumer transaction when the contract does not qualify for the home construction service exclusion.

Kapper v. Valantine Roofing & Home Remodeling, Inc. · filed 2026-01-13(A)

The contract price of $18,727.09 does not exceed the statutorily-required amount. As the contract does not constitute a home construction service contract, as that term is defined by statute, we find the roof replacement at issue in this appeal is a “consumer transaction” governed by the CSPA.

Section 1345.01 treats collection of a consumer debt as part of the consumer transaction and a business enforcing that debt as a supplier.

Liggins v. May Co. · filed 1975-05-21(A), (C)

The assignment of the collection of the debt by the defendant, The May Company, to Professional Services Unlimited, Inc., is a part of the consumer transaction, and any conduct in violation of the practices prohibited in the provisions of the Code is not permissible either by the supplier or its designated assignee, agent or agency with relation to the collection of the debt until such time as the relationship is fully terminated by the payment thereof; ... It is this court’s opinion that a person engaged in the business of enforcing or attempting to enforce the payment of a claim or debt owed by a consumer to a supplier which arises from a consumer transaction is engaged in the business of effecting a consumer transaction, • and is therefore a supplier as the term is defined in E. C.'1345.01 (C).

Section 1345.01 includes the sale of a heating and air-conditioning system for a family household within its definition of a consumer transaction.

Beck v. Trane Co. · filed 1990-12-19(A)

A "consumer transaction," as defined in R.C. 1345.01, includes the sale of goods to an individual "for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household ***." ... The record clearly establishes that the heating and air-conditioning unit sold by Trane to the appellants was for their family household. Moreover, the parties do not dispute that the subject sale was initiated by a telephone solicitation. We find, therefore, no basis for excluding the sale of the unit from either the general provisions of the Consumer Sales Practices Act or the particular provisions of the Home Solicitation Sale Act.

Section 1345.01(C) includes a person who collects a debt arising from a consumer transaction within the definition of a supplier.

Liggins v. May Co. · filed 1977-10-26(C)

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that a person engaged in the business of enforcing or attempting to enforce the payment of a claim of debt owed by a consumer to a supplier which arises from a consumer transaction is engaged in the business of effecting a consumer transaction and is a “supplier” as defined at R. C. 1345.-01(C).

Section 1345.01(C) does not treat a mere assignee of an installment obligation as a supplier.

Dartmouth Plan, Inc. v. Haerr · filed 1990-12-04(C)

We agree with the trial court that Dartmouth, a mere assignee of the installment obligation, is not a supplier within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(C).

Section 1345.01(C) requires sufficient business activity to qualify as a supplier; three car sales by a repair-shop owner in one year were insufficient.

Laveck v. Al's Mustang Stable · filed 1991-07-08(C)

Therefore, we conclude that R.C. 1345.01 does not apply, as appellee is neither a supplier nor a dealer, since there is insufficient activity on his part to find that he “engages in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions.”

Section 1345.01(C) includes a mobile home retailer and manufacturer within the definition of supplier, even if the manufacturer does not deal directly with the consumer.

Potter v. Dangler Mobile Homes · filed 1977-12-14(C)

Both defendants are described in these acts as follows: ... R. C. 1345.01 “(C) ‘Supplier’ means a seller* **or other person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, whether or not he deals directly with the consumer.”

Section 1345.01(C) includes an assignee engaged in collecting payments on consumer transactions within the definition of “supplier.”

Celebrezze v. United Research, Inc. · filed 1984-06-06(C)

Rather, we hold that Universal is a person engaged in the business of effecting consumer transactions (i.e., payment) and, as such, is a supplier pursuant to R.C. 1345.01(C).

A supplier under § 1345.01(C) must be engaged in effecting or soliciting consumer transactions and have some connection to the transaction at issue; contractual privity with the consumer is unnecessary.

Garner v. Borcherding Buick, Inc. · filed 1992-12-02(C)

We hold that a defendant must be engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, R.C. 1345.01(C), and that the defendant must have some connection to the consumer transaction in question in order to be liable as a supplier for deceptive practices which violate the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. ... However, we do not interpret the statutes as requiring privity of contract between the consumer and the defendant.

A contract’s definition of “seller” does not establish that an assignee is a “supplier” under the CSPA.

Nations Credit v. Pheanis · filed 1995-03-22(C)

Whether a party falls within the statutory definition of a term cannot be determined from the contractual definition of a label used for the purposes of the contract. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Pheanis’s argument that Nations Credit was a “supplier” for the purposes of the CSPA simply because the definition of the “seller” in the retail installment contract included Nations Credit as the assignee of the contract.

An isolated act does not make a person a supplier engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions under § 1345.01(C).

Renner v. Derin Acquisition Corp. · filed 1996-05-13(C)

Therefore, the isolated act by Gentilcore herein did not make her a “supplier” engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting “consumer transactions.”

Section 1345.01(C) includes a corporate officer who personally engages in consumer transactions within the definition of a supplier.

Inserra v. J.E.M. Building Corp., Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000) · filed 2000-11-22(C)

It is clear from the definition of "supplier" that both J.E.M. and Mr. Pitzulo are suppliers under the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(C) defines a person retained to collect a debt arising from a consumer transaction as a supplier.

Gatto v. Frank Nero Auto Lease, Inc., Unpublished Decision (4-8-1999) · filed 1999-04-08(C)

A person retained to collect, or attempt to collect, upon claims of debt arising from a consumer transaction is a "supplier" as defined by R.C. 1345.01 (C). ... Accordingly, appellees are suppliers for purposes of this action, an issue they did not contest in the trial court.

An employee who handles consumer complaints may qualify as a supplier if the employee engages in the business of effecting consumer transactions.

Carter v. Taylor, Unpublished Decision (12-9-1999) · filed 1999-12-09(C)

Employees may be liable as suppliers for actions they take in the course of their employment. ... Because a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Taylor is a supplier remains, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Taylor.

Section 1345.01(C) includes a business that deals indirectly with a consumer as a supplier when it is connected to the consumer transaction.

Lump v. Best Door and Window, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2002) · filed 2002-03-27(C)

The definition of supplier "includes those who engage in the business of effecting consumer transactions, whether or not they deal directly with the consumer." Garner v. Borcherding Buick, Inc . (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 61 , 64 (citing R.C. 1345.01 (C)). ... In addition, when construing the facts most favorably to the Lumps, Modern was connected to the consumer transaction between the Lumps and Best once it began discussions with Mr. Lump as to what was causing the delay, by giving various delivery dates, and in telling Mr. Lump that it would take care of him. Thus, the relationship between Modern and the Lumps fits squarely within the boundaries of the CSPA.

A supplier under § 1345.01(C) must engage in consumer transactions as a regular business activity; servicing an individual's well did not make a company that chiefly serviced commercial oil wells a supplier.

Temple Oil Gas Co. v. Henning, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2002) · filed 2002-11-22(C)

The phrase "engaged in the business of" is commonly used in statutory schemes and has generally been held to connote continuous or regular activity. Id. ... In the instant case, there was evidence that appellee's business was nearly exclusively involved in servicing oil wells for Oxford Oil Company, Artex Oil Company, or other businesses which sell oil and natural gas for profit. ... The first assignment of error is overruled.

A person is a consumer only if the person engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier; being sued by the supplier does not itself make the person a consumer.

Swa v. Straka, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2003) · filed 2003-06-19(D)

A "consumer" is defined by R.C. 1345.01 (D) as "a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier." Simply because Straka was sued by SWA does not mean she engaged in a "transaction" with SWA.

Section 1345.01(C) includes an entity that takes consumers’ orders for goods and accepts payment within the definition of a supplier.

Knoth v. Prime Time Marketing Mgt., Inc., Unpublished Decision (10-27-2006) · filed 2006-10-27(C)

The italicized portion of the statutory definition leaves no doubt of the General Assembly's intent to include within the scope of the Consumer Sales Practices Act an entity, like TotalHome, that takes orders for goods from consumers, and also accepts payment of the money comprising the purchase price.

A person does not qualify as a supplier for a consumer transaction merely because it might benefit financially from another party’s solicitation.

Charvat v. Farmers Insurance Columbus, Inc. · filed 2008-08-26(C)

Although Farmers may be considered a supplier for purposes of some consumer transactions, Farmers did not effect or solicit the consumer transaction in the present case. As explained above, the sales call was solicited by Take the Lead and was effected and prompted by Perlman Agency. No doubt Farmers could have obtained a financial benefit from any sales resulting from the first call, but that benefit is too far removed here from the actual solicitation by Take the Lead.

A person retained to collect debts arising from a consumer transaction is a supplier under Section 1345.01(C).

D.A.N. Joint Venture v. Armstrong, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007) · filed 2007-03-02(C)

"A person retained to collect, or attempt to collect upon claims of debt arising from a consumer transaction is a `supplier' as defined by R.C. 1345.01(C)."

A state agency is a supplier under § 1345.01(C) only when it acts as a market participant.

Bungard v. Dept. of Job Family Servs., 07ap-447 (11-27-2007) · filed 2007-11-27(C)

The State of Ohio (or one of its agencies) cannot be a "supplier" within the meaning of the CSPA unless the State has become a market participant.

Debt collectors who purchase debts from banks qualify as suppliers under § 1345.01 when they are not themselves regulated as banks.

Midland Funding LLC v. Brent · filed 2009-08-11(C)

This Court agrees. For the purposes of the OCSPA, Midland and MCM are suppliers.

A city that regularly organizes mediations without engaging in debt collection is not a supplier under § 1345.01(C).

Passa v. City of Columbus · filed 2010-09-28(C)

The OCSPA defines a “supplier” as a “person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, whether or not he deals directly with the consumer.” O.R.C. § 1345.01(C). ... As discussed supra, this Court has concluded that the City, through its Program, regularly organized mediations and did not engage in debt collection activities. Accordingly, because the City is not a supplier, plaintiffs OCSPA claim must fail.

Section 1345.01(B)’s definition of “supplier” covers an attorney’s collection of debts associated with consumer transactions.

Turner v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss · filed 2011-03-04(B)

The OCSPA defines a “supplier” as a “person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, whether or not he deals directly with the consumer.” O.R.C. § 1345.01(B). ... Thus, the Court concludes that the debt collection activities of Defendant Lerner fall within the purview of the statute.

Section 1345.01(C) defines a supplier to include a business that effects or solicits consumer transactions; evidence of residential renovation work supported treating TDP as a supplier.

Baaron, Inc. v. Davidson · filed 2015-10-13(C)

Upon review of the record, we conclude that, because there was evidence that TDP was a “supplier” as defined in Section 1345.01(C) of the CSPA, the trial court did not err when it denied TDP’s motions for a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial.

Section 1345.01's definitions allow a consumer to bring an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim against a supplier without direct privity.

Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 2016-01-27(D)

Unlike the Ohio Plaintiffs’ claim for implied warranty of merchantability, privity is not required for an OCSPA claim. See O.R.C. 1345.01(D) (a consumer is “a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier”) and O.R.C. 1345.01(D) (a “supplier” does not have to deal directly with the consumer).

Section 1345.01(C) does not require privity between a supplier and a consumer, but the supplier must have some connection to the particular consumer transaction.

Michelson v. Aktiengesellschaft · filed 2018-04-05(C)

Although there is no requirement of privity between the supplier and the consumer for the CSPA to be applicable, "the defendant must have some connection to the consumer transaction in question in order to be liable as a supplier for deceptive practices which violate the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act." ... Upon review, we find that Michelson's claim is not the type envisioned under the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(C) includes law firms that solicit consumers to resolve or pay debts within the definition of “supplier.”

Williams v. Partners for Payment Relief, LLC · filed 2020-02-28(C)

Consequently, under Taylor, because Defendants solicited Williams in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, they are subject to Williams’ OCSPA claim because she has sufficiently plead they are ... suppliers.

Section 1345.01(C) requires continuous or regular repair activity for a person to qualify as an auto repair supplier; an isolated offer to repair a car does not suffice.

Sims v. Haghighi · filed 2020-03-02(C)

“Supplier” is defined as “a seller, lessor, assignor, franchisor, or other person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the consumer.” R.C. 1345.01(C). ... Appellant failed to present evidence that appellee repairs cars outside of warranty as a continuous or regular activity. Therefore, summary judgment was proper.

Section 1345.01(C) defines a supplier to include a business that solicits consumer transactions; a debt collector can qualify.

Cunningham v. Account Processing Group LLC · filed 2022-03-28(C)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are suppliers, as they are “engaged in the business of soliciting consumer transactions.” O.R.C. § 1345.01(C); see ECF No. 1 ¶ 65 (citing Taylor v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 72 N.E.3d 573, 599–600 (Ohio 2016) (holding debt collector to be a “supplier” within meaning of OCSPA)). ... Again, taking all the facts in Plaintiff’s Complaint as true, the allegations in Count Two are sufficient to state a meritorious claim.

A mortgage loan assignee with a contractual relationship with the borrower is not categorically excluded from the CSPA’s supplier definition merely because it services the loan.

Guzman v. USAA Federal Savings Bank · filed 2024-05-03(C)

Unlike in Anderson, a contractual relationship existed here between Nationstar and Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court concludes, at this early stage in the proceedings, it cannot grant Nationstar’s dismissal on the ground that its actions were those of a servicer and not an assignee.

A residential mortgage servicer is not a supplier under § 1345.01(C).

Hibbard v. NewRez LLC · filed 2025-09-22(C)

Thus, as the prior loan servicer, PHH does not qualify as a “supplier” under the Act.

A corporate officer who actively participates in or directs a CSPA violation may be liable as a supplier even if the officer did not perform the contracted work.

Sumner v. Roofing Co. · filed 2025-08-22(C)

Under the CSPA, “supplier” means a seller, lessor, assignor, franchisor, or other person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the consumer. R.C. 1345.01(C). ... Mann was not required to actually participate in the construction work to be liable under the CSPA. As previously explained, a corporate officer like Mann can be held personally liable for violations of the CSPA if he actively participated in or directed the actions that led to the violation.

Section 1345.01(A) uses “individual” to mean a natural person, excluding corporations.

Toledo Metro Federal Credit Union v. Ted Papenhagen Oldsmobile, Inc. · filed 1978-03-17(A)

Thus, we hold that, for purposes of R. C. 1345.01(A), the term “individual” means a natural person, and does not include a corporation.

Section 1345.01(B) treats a corporation as a person under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc. · filed 1992-05-08(B)

Under the OCSPA, a corporation is a “person.” R.C. 1345.01(B).

Section 1345.01(D) extends consumer protection to a person pursued for a consumer obligation even if that person did not personally engage in the consumer transaction.

Broadnax v. Greene Credit Service · filed 1997-04-04(D)

The more problematic question is the fact that Broadnax does not appear to be a consumer, as defined by the OCSPA, since he did not personally engage in the consumer transaction with Super Valu. ... Thus, we conclude that the protection afforded by the statute extends to persons in Broadnax’s position.

Section 1345.01(A) treats vehicle warranty repairs and other services performed by a dealer as a consumer transaction.

Richards v. Volvo · filed 1998-04-03(A)

Here, the consumer transaction was the warranty repair and other services performed on Richards’s vehicle by Beechmont Volvo.

A consumer transaction requires a transfer to an individual for primarily personal, family, or household purposes.

Ostrander v. Andrew, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2000) · filed 2000-05-31(A)

Hence, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute as to whether the Consumer Sales Practices Act applies to the transaction in question because: (1) the sale of the malfunctioning computer was to Mr. Andrew where, to be a consumer transaction, the sale must be " to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal," (Emphasis added.) R.C. 1345.01 (A); (2) the purchase of the new computer was by a corporation rather than a natural person, Deacon , 49 Ohio St.3d at 82 ; Toledo Metro Fed. Credit Union v. Ted Papenhagen Oldsmobile, Inc. (1978), 56 Ohio App.2d 218 , 221 ; and (3) although Ms. Ostrander may have used the malfunctioning computer for some personal purposes, the new computer was not purchased primarily for personal use, Barazzotto v. Intelligent Systems, Inc. (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 117 , 121 .

Section 1345.01(D) defines a consumer as a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier; a person who signs a contract only as a witness is not a consumer.

D.A.N. Joint Venture III, Lp v. Legg, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2004) · filed 2004-05-26(D)

A consumer is defined as "a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier. R.C. 1345.01 (D). In this case, the Leggs were not consumers because they were not engaged in the consumer transaction. They were merely witnesses to the contract.

Section 1345.01(D) defines a consumer as a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier; receiving gift cards as gifts does not satisfy that definition.

Dawson v. Blockbuster, Inc., Unpublished Decision (3-16-2006) · filed 2006-03-16(D)

Appellant is not a consumer as defined by the OCSPA. Appellant received all three gift cards as gifts for various birthdays. As previously mentioned, R.C. 1345.01 (D) defines the consumer protected by the act as a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier. Appellant did not engage in a consumer transaction as it is defined in the statute. Accordingly, R.C. 1345.01 does not apply.

A person is a consumer under § 1345.01(D) only if they engage in a consumer transaction with a supplier; having their name placed on purchase documents without their involvement does not qualify.

Rose-Gulley v. Spitzer Akron, Inc., Unpublished Decision (8-4-2004) · filed 2004-08-04(D)

The act defines as a "consumer" those persons "who engag[e] in a consumer transaction with a supplier." R.C. 1345.01 (D). ... Because she has failed to present evidence showing she was engaged in a consumer transaction with Spitzer, Rose-Gulley has failed to present any evidence showing that she is a consumer within the meaning of the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) defines a consumer transaction as one involving an individual, meaning a natural person.

Ferron Assoc., L.P.A. v. U.S. Four, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2005) · filed 2005-12-29(A)

We agree with the reasoning in Toledo Metro that defines an individual for purposes of a consumer transaction in the OCSPA to include only a natural person. Because appellant is not a natural person, it is not an individual as that term is used in R.C. 1345.01 (A).

Section 1345.01 treats a homeowner who buys home repair services as a consumer even if the homeowner acts as a general contractor.

Derosa v. Elliott Leveling, Inc., L-07-1148 (7-11-2008) · filed 2008-07-11(D)

Like the homeowners in Williams v. Edwards , supra, appellant is clearly a consumer within the meaning of the act. The gratuitous, and factually questionable, labeling of appellant as a general contractor does nothing to alter our analysis or this conclusion.

Section 1345.01(B) brings consumer actions against a government, governmental subdivision, or agency within the CSPA.

Leiby v. Univ. of Akron · filed 2011-09-06(B)

The CSPA was enacted prior to the enactment of the Court of Claims Act and it applies to consumer actions against a “government, governmental subdivision or agency.” See R.C. 1345.01(B); Ridenour v. Chillicothe Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-09178-AD, 2009-Ohio-3576, ¶5.

Section 1345.01 includes governments, governmental subdivisions, and agencies within the Consumer Sales Practices Act’s coverage.

Somasundaram v. Kent State Univ. · filed 2013-08-07

The CSPA was enacted prior to the enactment of the Court of Claims Act and it applies to consumer actions against a “government, governmental subdivision or agency.” See R.C. 1345.01; Ridenour v. Chillicothe Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-09178-AD, 2009-Ohio-3576.

Section 1345.01(A) limits consumer transactions to transfers to natural persons for primarily personal, family, or household purposes; a corporation cannot maintain a CSPA claim.

Semco, Inc. v. Sims Bros., Inc. · filed 2013-09-23(A)

However, Semco’s erroneous stand-in-the-shoes argument notwithstanding, a plaintiff must be a natural person, not a business entity, to maintain an action under the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(D) covers a person who engages in a consumer transaction with a supplier even if that person did not sign the sales contract.

Hamilton v. Ball · filed 2014-03-19(D)

It is quite clear that she was “a person who engage[d] in a consumer transaction with a supplier,” and thus, a “consumer” entitled to CSPA protections. Ball’s argument that the “sales contract listed Benjamin Hamilton as the sole purchaser of the 2006 Torrent” misconstrues the law. The CSPA simply does not require a claimant to have privity of contract to bring a claim under the Act.