Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01

Section 1345.01(H)(2) excludes bank employees from the definition of a loan officer under the Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Cianfaglione v. Lake Natl. Bank · filed 2019-04-08(H)(2)

While the term “supplier” does include loan officers, R.C. 1345.01(H)(2) specifically provides that a loan officer “does not include an employee of a bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or credit union service organization organized under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States.”

Section 1345.01(A) defines consumer transactions only for sections 1345.01 through 1345.13 and excludes attorney-client transactions.

Patton v. Diemer · filed 1988-02-03(A)

As an initial matter, R.C. 1345.01(A), by its terms, applies only to “sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code.” Secondly, R.C. 1345.01(A) specifically excludes the attorney-client relationship, whereas no such exclusion is present in R.C. 2323.13.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes Bank One’s loan transaction from the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act because Bank One is a financial institution.

Blon v. Bank One, Akron, N.A. · filed 1988-02-10(A)

Although not raised by the parties on appeal, we note our agreement with the lower courts that, because Bank One is a financial institution under R.C. 5725.01(A), the transaction at issue is excepted from application of the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Act by R.C. 1317.01(P) and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between a financial institution and its customer from the definition of a consumer transaction; the lender’s attempt to collect the debt does not change that result.

NCR Universal Credit Union v. Kleinberg · filed 1990-04-16(A)

We agree with NCR that R.C. 1345.01 et seq., the Consumer Sales Practices Act, is not implicated in this case. R.C. 1345.01(A), defining "consumer transaction," specifically excludes "transactions between persons, defined in (R.C. 5725.01), and their customers." ... Nevertheless, she persists in her contention that NCR's attempt to collect the debt was itself a consumer transaction. The definition of "consumer transaction" at R.C. 1345.01(A), however, simply belies this contention.

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

Vannoy v. Capital Lincoln-Mercury Sales, Inc. · filed 1993-06-02(A)

Moreover, consumer transactions under the CSPA do not include transactions between financial institutions and their customers. R.C. 1345.01(A) and 5725.01(A). A bank engaged in such lending activities is exempted from R.C. Chapter 1345 and its accompanying regulations.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between licensed chiropractors and their patients from the Consumer Sales Practices Act because chiropractors are physicians under the section.

Chiropractic Clinic of Solon v. Kutsko · filed 1994-01-10(A)

In view of these considerations and upon a review of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, we conclude that licensed doctors of chiropractic are “physicians” as the term is used in R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between attorneys and their clients from the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Burke v. Gammarino · filed 1995-12-29(A)

This Act, however, does not apply to transactions between attorneys and their clients, and Gammarino’s reliance on it was completely misplaced. R.C. 1345.01(A).

Section 1345.01(A) exempts a financial institution’s transactions with its customers from the Consumer Sales Practices Act, but does not prevent the institution from accepting derivative liability for a seller’s violations through an FTC holder clause.

Milchen v. Bob Morris Pontiac-Gmc Truck · filed 1996-07-31(A)

Bank One, which is a financial institution, is exempted from the prohibitions of the CSPA in transactions with its customers. R.C. 1345.01(A) and 5725.01(A). ... Thus, while Bank One may not be subject to the CSPA for its own actions toward appellant, it agreed to be derivatively liable for the dealer’s violations of the CSPA when it accepted the terms of the contract.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions with dealers in intangibles from the OCSPA; failure to file required tax reports does not remove a lender's dealer status.

King v. Cashland, Inc., Unpublished Decision (9-1-2000) · filed 2000-09-01(A)

R.C. 1345.01 defines consumer transactions as follows: ... "Consumer transaction" does not include transactions between persons defined in sections 4905.03 and 5725.01 of the Revised Code, and their customers. ... As defined for the purposes of the OCSPA, Cashland is a dealer in intangibles, and is exempted from the coverage of the Act.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions involving insurance companies from consumer transactions, but an insurer’s escrow work does not establish that exclusion on the pleadings alone.

Drozeck v. Lawyers Title Insurance · filed 2000-12-28(A)

It does not encompass transactions between persons defined in R.C. 5725.01, which includes “insurance companies.” ... Moreover, while Lawyers Title claims that it is exempt from the OCSPA because it is in the business of selling “title insurance” as defined by R.C. 3953.01(A), it has not explained how acting in the capacity as an admitted escrow agent is “in substance equivalent” or “substantially amounting to” engaging in the insurance business. R.C. 3953.01(B)(3); R.C. 5725.01(C). The resolution of this question depends upon matters outside the pleadings and, therefore, cannot be considered in the disposition of a Civ.R. 12(C) motion.

A franchise sale is a consumer transaction under § 1345.01(A) only if it is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Yo-Can, Inc. v. Yogurt Exchange, Inc. · filed 2002-09-26(A)

For all of the preceding reasons, the CSPA is inapplicable to the sale of a franchise for a yogurt-selling store. Most specifically, the CSPA is inapplicable because the transaction herein does not have the required characteristic of being primarily for purposes that are personal, family, or household.

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

Fifth Third Bank v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (12-6-2004) · filed 2004-12-06(A)

The definition of "consumer transaction" in the CSPA excludes transactions between certain classes of persons and their customers. R.C. 1345.01 (A). Transactions involving financial institutions and their customers are among those classes exempt from the prohibitions of the CSPA. Id.; R.C. 5725.01 (A). It is undisputed that Fifth Third Bank is a financial institution as defined in R.C. 5725.01 (A). Therefore, the lease in question, which is a transaction between Fifth Third Bank and its customer, Roberts, is outside of the scope of the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between financial institutions, including banks, and their customers from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Abn Amro Mortgage Gr. v. Arnold, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2005) · filed 2005-03-04(A)

We note that the CSPA does exclude from its definition of a "consumer transaction" all transactions between financial institutions, including banks, and their customers. See R.C. 1345.01 (A) and R.C. 5725.01 . For this reason, rather than for the procedural reasons cited by the trial court, the Arnolds' CSPA claim against FNMB was properly dismissed.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes vehicle titling done by an insurance company in its capacity as an insurer from the CSPA’s definition of a consumer transaction.

Chesnut v. Progressive Casualty Insurance · filed 2006-04-27(A)

Subsection (A) goes on to state that a consumer transaction does not include a transaction between an insurance company and its customers. ... In the instant case, Progressive obtained a title for a vehicle it declared a total loss before selling it at an auto auction. This was clearly done in Progressive’s capacity as an insurance company and is not subject to the CSPA.

Section 1345.01 excludes transactions between financial institutions and their customers, but that exclusion does not necessarily extend to an assignee whose business is debt collection.

Lee v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP · filed 2007-04-17(A)

The statute specifically excludes transactions between financial institutions and their customers. ... the Court cannot find any definitive authority suggesting that an assignee of a-financial institution, an assignee whose only business apparently is to collect debt, is entitled to the same exemption. ... Given this authority, the Court denies JB & R’s motion to dismiss the OCSPA claim under Rule 12.

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

Reagans v. MountainHigh Coachworks, Inc. · filed 2008-01-31(A)

As a general matter, transactions between financial institutions and their customers are exempted from the definition of a “consumer transaction” subject to the Consumer Sales Practices Act.

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

Jackson v. Sunnyside Toyota, Inc. · filed 2008-02-21(A)

“Consumer transactions” do not include transactions between “financial institutions” and their customers.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes a bank’s solicitation of potential customers from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Ferron v. Fifth Third Bank, 08ap-473 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(A)

For these reasons, we find appellant was a "customer," for purposes of defining a consumer transaction under R.C. 1345.01 (A). Accordingly, because appellee was a "financial institution," and appellant was a "customer," the advertisements at issue were explicitly exempt from the definition of "consumer transaction" in R.C. 1345.01 (A).

Section 1345.01(A) excludes a financial institution’s telemarketing calls from the definition of a consumer transaction, even when the recipient alleges he was not a customer.

Charvat v. DFS SERVICES LLC · filed 2011-03-18(A)

Transactions between financial institutions and their customers are excluded from the OCSPA’s definition of “consumer transaction.” ... Because the telemarketing calls at issue in this case constitute a transaction between a financial institution and its customer under Ohio law, Count 4 is dismissed as to Discover.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between physicians and patients from the definition of consumer transaction, but does not exempt hospitals or other medical service providers.

Monroe v. Forum Health · filed 2012-12-24(A)

Pursuant to R.C. 1345.01(A), a “consumer transaction” does not include a transaction between “physicians * * * and their clients or patients.” ... The Monroes did not file their claims against an individual physician but against Forum Health, doing business as Trumbull Memorial Hospital. Various courts have held that CSPA claims can be raised against hospitals or medical service providers, since they are not specifically exempted by the statute. ... Therefore, we find that the trial court erred by dismissing the Monroes’ CSPA claim against Forum Health based on the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

Section 1345.01 excludes residential mortgage servicing from the definition of a consumer transaction and excludes mortgage servicers from the definition of a supplier.

Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc. · filed 2013-05-14(A), (C)

Mortgage servicing is not a consumer transaction under the CSPA, and an entity that services a residential mortgage loan is not a “supplier” under the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions with banks from the definition of consumer transactions, except for loans under $500 and transactions involving residential mortgages.

Stiner v. Crescent Bank & Trust · filed 2014-03-13(A)

Stiner’s allegations relating to the OCSPA do not apply in the instant case because R.C. 1345.01(A), in defining “consumer transactions,” excludes transactions between persons or entities defined in R.C. 5725.01, which includes financial institutions such as banks, except in two limited circumstances. The first is transactions for loans under $500, and the second relates to transactions involving residential mortgages. Crescent is a financial institution as defined under R.C. 5725.01, the loan involved in the instant case is for more than $500, and the loan does not involve a residential mortgage. Therefore, the trial court correctly determined that Stiner could not obtain relief under the OCSPA.

Section 1345.01(A)’s financial institution exemption does not extend to a debt buyer or its attorneys merely because the debt originated with a financial institution.

Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion) · filed 2016-06-16(A)

And we reject any notion that a debt collector and its attorneys can be permitted “derivative use” of the financial-institution exemption in the OCSPA based solely on the fact that the debt at issue originated between a financial institution and a consumer.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions with financial institutions from consumer transactions, subject to exceptions for specified loans and residential mortgage transactions.

Hubbard v. Charter One Bank · filed 2017-03-23(A)

If the claim that Barber was represented to be a Charter One employee is correct, then the transaction at issue is not a consumer transaction under the CSPA. Transactions with a financial institution, defined in R.C. 5725.01(A), are exempt from the definition of a consumer transactions, except for limited circumstances.

Servicing a residential mortgage loan, including helping negotiate a modification for the lender, is not a consumer transaction under § 1345.01(A).

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rudzik · filed 2014-03-31(A)

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently reviewed this provision in the context of determining whether the servicing of a residential mortgage loan is a “consumer transaction.” Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc., 136 Ohio St. 3d 31, 32 (2013). It determined that it is not and that an “entity that services a residential mortgage loan is not a ‘supplier’ as defined in R.C. 1345.01(C).” Id. ... Consequently, based upon that decision, the CSPA claim was properly dismissed.

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

Dillon v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. (Slip Opinion) · filed 2015-12-29(A)

R.C. 1345.81(E) incorporates R.C. 1345.01’s exclusion of transactions between insurers and their customers from the definition of a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.01(A) excludes transactions between a financial institution and its customers from consumer transactions, and that exclusion extends to the institution’s own counsel.

Capital One Bank v. Jones · filed 2020-03-31(A)

In this case, M&P filed the complaint on behalf of the financial institution that originally issued the credit card to Ms. Jones. R.C. 5725.01(A)(1) (including a “national bank” within the definition of financial institution); R.C. 1345.01(A) (providing that a consumer transaction does not include transactions between a financial institution and its customers). Wise v. Zwicker & Assocs., P.C., 780 F.3d 710, 719 (6th Cir.2015). Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. could not have initiated an action against Ms. Jones without the assistance of an attorney. We, therefore, conclude that the OCSPA’s exemptions must extend to a financial institution’s own counsel.

Mortgage servicing alone is neither a consumer transaction nor supplier activity under the CSPA.

Becker v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC · filed 2022-02-01(A), (C)

While the Act does not apply to mortgage servicers, assignees are a different matter.

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

White v. Grange Ins. Co. · filed 2022-02-18(A)

R.C. 1345.01(A) defines consumer transactions that are subject to the CSPA, and also defines transactions that are not. ... Insurance companies are “persons” who are defined in R.C. 5725.01(C), (D), and (E). The Supreme Court of Ohio therefore has held that “transactions between insurance companies and their customers are not consumer transactions.” ... As a result, the statute of limitations in R.C. 1345.10(C) has no bearing on this case or on the one-year limitations period in Grange’s insurance policy.

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

Williams v. U.S. Natl. Bank Assn. · filed 2026-06-12(A)

Although R.C. 1345.01(A) provides certain exceptions to that rule, nothing in the record indicates that those exceptions apply here. ... Accordingly, Williams’ alleged transaction with U.S. National does not qualify as a consumer transaction under the CSPA. Because U.S. National is a financial institution and transactions with financial institutions do not qualify as consumer transactions, Williams cannot obtain relief under the CSPA.

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations; a supplier need only knowingly commit the act, without knowing it violates the law.

Brooks v. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-Gmc, Inc. · filed 1985-02-19(E)

Our attention is invited to R.C. 1345.01(E) which defines “knowledge” as “* * * actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” ... We approve of the law as stated in Rashid, supra, since it conforms to the statute. One can knowingly do an act without knowing that the act is in violation of the law.

Section 1345.01(E) does not require a supplier to know that its conduct violates a consumer protection statute if it knows the conduct is wrong or unlawful.

Mid-America Acceptance Co. v. Lightle · filed 1989-08-01(E)

A supplier must have knowledge or actual awareness that the act or practice is wrong or in violation of the law. However, it does not automatically follow that the supplier must have knowledge or actual awareness that the act violates the consumer protection statutes.

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations of awareness.

Albert v. Boatsmith Marine Service & Storage, Inc. · filed 1989-10-11(E)

The definition of “knowledge” in R.C. 1345.01(E) states: “ ‘Knowledge’ means actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” The record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that defendant knowingly violated Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-05 based upon inferences drawn from the nature of defendant’s business, the length of time engaged in that business, and its experience in routinely dealing in consumer transactions in which insurance was involved.

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations of that awareness.

Suttle v. Decesare, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2003) · filed 2003-06-05(E)

"Knowledge," under R.C. 1345.01 (E), "means actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness." ... The Suttles have failed to produce evidence that DeCesare, who as general contractor gave work on the home construction to subcontractors, which work product was successfully passed inspection by the city of Fairview Park's building department, acted with knowledge of the shoddy work.

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations.

Boyle v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., Unpublished Decision (8-16-2002) · filed 2002-08-16(E)

"Knowledge" is defined as "* * * actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness." R.C. 1345.01 (E). ... The trial court's inquiry should focus on whether Daimler Chrysler intentionally committed an act or practice that violates the Act or whether its violation was a bona fide error under R.C. 1345.11 .

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness that may be inferred from objective circumstances.

Shank v. Charger, Inc. · filed 2010-03-19(E)

R.C. 1345.01(E) defines “knowledge” as “actual awareness,” but stresses that “such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” Accordingly, the plaintiff need not show direct awareness, but awareness can be inferred from circumstances.

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations of awareness.

Averback v. Montrose Ford, Inc. · filed 2019-02-06(E)

{¶66} The CSPA defines " '[k]nowledge' " as "actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness." R.C. 1345.01(E).

Section 1345.01(E) allows actual awareness to be inferred from objective manifestations that a person acted with that awareness.

Frank v. WNB Group, L.L.C. · filed 2019-05-03(E)

This “ ‘actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual acted with such awareness.’ ” Bierlein at *6, quoting R.C. 1345.01(E). ... Our record contains no evidence from which it can be inferred that RH had knowledge that it was misrepresenting the facts, and Frank does not argue otherwise.

Section 1345.01(E) permits knowledge to be inferred from objective manifestations that a person acted with awareness.

Walker v. Cedar Fair. L.P. · filed 2022-04-21(E)

O.R.C. § 1345.01(E) provides that knowledge “may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” ... The facts plaintiffs have alleged in their complaint suffice at this stage to state a claim that Cedar Fair unconscionably, intentionally chose not to include a force majeure clause on its websites, thereby obscuring or concealing from the plaintiffs that they and not Cedar Fair would bear the financial consequences of a force majeure event.

Knowledge under the OCSPA means awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations of awareness.

McNichols v. Gouge Quality Roofing, L.L.C. · filed 2022-09-13(E)

“Knowledge” for purposes of the OCSPA “means awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” R.C. 1345.01(E). ... However, there was no evidence the failure to provide the written breakdown was done with knowledge or intent to deceive.

Knowledge means actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations that a person acted with that awareness.

Price v. Evans Automotive Repair, Inc · filed 2024-10-24(E)

Pursuant to R.C. 1345.01(E), “ ‘[k]nowledge’ [] ‘means actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness that may be inferred from objective manifestations.

Rupp v. Premier Health Partners · filed 2025-03-21(E)

As defined in the CSPA, “knowledge means actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” R.C. 1345.01(E).

Knowledge means actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations of awareness.

Tancer v. Charter Oaks Dev., Ltd. · filed 2026-01-15(E)

R.C. 1345.01(E) defines “knowledge” as “actual awareness, but such actual awareness may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate that the individual involved acted with such awareness.” Thus, to award attorney’s fees under the two provisions, when read as a whole, there must be some evidence tending to show the supplier knew his work or conduct fell below the standard of care or did not meet or exceed applicable standards.

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations; merely showing that a supplier should have known is insufficient.

Hopper v. Landen Auto Mart, L.L.C. · filed 2025-06-30(E)

Contrary to Hopper's assertions, a "should have known" standard does not apply to claims of unconscionable acts or practices under R.C. 1345.03. Rather, as set forth above, claims of unconscionable acts or practices require that the seller have knowledge. That is, the seller must have "actual awareness" or there must be "objective manifestations indcat[ing] that the individual involved acted with such awareness." R.C. 1345.01(E).

Section 1345.01(E) defines knowledge as actual awareness, which may be inferred from objective manifestations; a supplier need not know its conduct is unlawful.

Andrews v. Scott Pontiac Cadillac GMC, Inc. · filed 1991-03-29(E)

A supplier may not escape liability for attorney fees merely because of ignorance that his actions were unlawful. The supplier is liable for attorney fees if he knowingly commits the act or practice which is determined to violate the CSPA, regardless of whether the supplier knew the unlawfulness of his act at the time of its commission.

A corporate officer who personally participates in an unfair consumer act and deals directly with the consumer can be personally liable under the Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Stultz v. Artistic Pools, Inc., Unpublished Decision (10-10-2001) · filed 2001-10-10(C)

However, "[u]nder the CSPA, if an individual employee engages in unfair consumer acts and deals directly with the consumer, that person can be held personally liable, notwithstanding that the individual acted as an agent of his employer." ... This Court concludes that the trial court erred as a matter of law in dismissing Parks at the close of appellants' case with respect to the CSPA claims.