Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02

Section 1345.02 prohibits deceptive practices by Ohio suppliers in consumer transactions even when the consumer is outside Ohio.

Brown v. Market Development, Inc. · filed 1974-02-21(A)

The court concludes that the Act is intended to prohibit (and to provide civil remedies to enforce the prohibition of) deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices by Ohio suppliers in connection with consumer transactions, irrespective of the location of the consumer, whether within or without Ohio.

Section 1345.02(A) covers unfair or deceptive practices that occur after a consumer transaction, including continued misleading assurances and advice.

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

The relevant statutory provisions, however, state that “an unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.” Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1345.02(A) (emphasis added). See also Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1345.03(A). The facts in the record show that the defendants continued to provide their “tax service” to plaintiff until the early part of 1985. Up until that point, defendants continued to assure plaintiff that she would not have to pay any taxes or penalties to the IRS. These continued assurances and blatantly improper advice could constitute deceptive or unconscionable practices under the Ohio Act.

Section 1345.02 requires a consumer transaction and a supplier; a dealer of intangibles is excluded from the former, and a mere assignee of an installment obligation is not the latter.

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

For liability to attach under either of these two section^ the transaction upon which the claim is based must be a consumer transaction in an action brought against a supplier. ... Dartmouth is engaged in the activities of lending money and exchanging evidences of indebtedness and, therefore, is a dealer of intangibles whose actions fall squarely within the above quoted exception to R.C. 1345.01(A). ... 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 1345.02 covers the sale of a heating and air-conditioning system for a family household, even when the system requires installation.

Beck v. Trane Co. · filed 1990-12-19

R.C. 1345.02, which prohibits unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice^ applies to sales falling under the statutory definition of a "consumer transaction." ... The record clearly establishes that the heating and air-conditioning unit sold by Trane to the appellants was for their family household. ... 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 1345.02 covers alleged unfair or deceptive practices by a private school supplying educational services to consumers.

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

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.

Section 1345.02 does not require a consumer bringing a claim about car repairs to prove ownership of the vehicle.

Calderone v. Jim's Body Shop · filed 1991-08-12

There is nothing in R.C. 1345.02 or 1345.03 which requires a consumer who brings a claim under either section to satisfy the proof of ownership requirements established under R.C. 4505.04. Proof of ownership is not a requirement under R.C. 1345.02 or R.C. 1345.03.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover a landlord’s report of an alleged tenant debt to a credit agency because the report is not 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 1345.02(A) covers a supplier’s deceptive representations before, during, or after a consumer transaction; contractual privity with the consumer is not required.

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

Furthermore, a supplier’s representations may violate the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act whether they occur “before, during, or after the transaction.” R.C. 1345.02(A). ... However, we do not interpret the statutes as requiring privity of contract between the consumer and the defendant.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover alleged misrepresentations about land in a pure real estate transaction.

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

We hold that the transaction involved in this case is a pure real estate transaction, governed by the immense body of real estate law. As such, the transaction is not subject the Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the trial court erred in instructing the jury on this issue.

Section 1345.02(A) applies to consumer transactions; a lender that is a dealer in intangibles remains outside the Act’s coverage even if it fails to file required tax reports.

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

Pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 (A), the OCSPA is designed to protect consumers with respect to "consumer transactions." ... As defined for the purposes of the OCSPA, Cashland is a dealer in intangibles, and is exempted from the coverage of the Act.

Section 1345.02 can apply to alleged unfair or deceptive conduct involving goods or services used for personal, family, or household purposes, even when buyers are also encouraged to resell products.

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

To the extent the complaint alleges appellee failed to make refunds, failed to timely deliver goods, failed to ship goods in working condition, falsely advertised these products, or engaged in any other unfair, deceptive or unconscionable act in connection with products or services used in a personal, family or household capacity, appellant has set forth facts which would entitle her to relief under the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) applies when a dealer transfers possession of a consumer good, even if no sale occurs.

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

Moreover, we hold that a "sale" was not required in order for the CSPA to be applicable under these circumstances. R.C. 1345.02 (A) provides that "no supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." 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 lender’s derivative liability for a seller’s deceptive consumer sales practices cannot rest on notice of the seller’s past violations; the court required evidence of an assigned contract containing an FTC holder rule provision.

Hanlin v. Ohio Builders and Remodelers, Inc. · filed 2001-03-28

The Court further concludes that in the absence of evidence indicating that Defendant Equicredit was assigned a contract containing the FTC “holder rule,” Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendant can be held derivatively liable under the CSPA must fail.

Section 1345.02 applies to a contract to construct a new home on a consumer’s land.

Byers v. Coppel, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2001) · filed 2001-08-24

The OCSPA 4 prohibits suppliers from committing unfair, deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices in consumer transactions. R.C. 1345.02 ; R.C. 1345.03 . ... Thus, the OCSPA applies to transactions that include a contract to construct a residence.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair practices in consumer transactions, including a home builder's refusal to allow a buyer's inspector at a promised presettlement inspection under these circumstances.

Saraf v. Homes, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2002) · filed 2002-12-10(A)

However, R.C. 1345.02 (A) also expressly prohibits "unfair" acts or practices. ... Given the specific facts of the case before us, we conclude that appellant committed an unfair and/or unconscionable act in refusing to allow appellee's own inspector be present at the presettlement inspection.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover the sale of a business franchise because the transaction is not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

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

Under the CSPA, no supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. R.C. 1345.02(A). ... 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 1345.02 applies to consumer transactions; its general protections do not cover a relationship both parties treated as a business relationship.

Gugliotta v. Morano · filed 2005-05-25

The general provisions of the CSPA prohibit unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices in consumer transactions. R.C. 1345.02; R.C. 1345.03. ... Applying the Tomes rule to the instant matter, we need go no further than Morano’s sworn testimony at trial to conclude that she considered her relationship with Gugliotta/SAI a business relationship. And we need go no further than Gugliotta/SATs exhibits at trial — namely, the substantial number of “business development” documents prepared for Morano during the course of their relationship — to determine that Gugliotta/SAI considered their relationship with Morano a business relationship. 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 1345.02(A) applies to unfair or deceptive supplier practices only in connection with a consumer transaction; a shopper’s unilateral removal of unpaid goods is not such a transaction.

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

The OCSPA prohibits suppliers from committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. ... 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 1345.02 applies to a TCPA violation only when the violation is connected with a consumer transaction.

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

The OCSPA prohibits suppliers from committing unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction. R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 . While a violation of the TCPA is generally considered an unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable act under the OCSPA, a violation of the TCPA is only actionable under the OCSPA if the act is in connection with a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.02 does not apply to a pure real estate transaction, including an agreement to auction a home that calls for no personal services.

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

However, this statute must be read in conjunction with R.C. 1345.02 and R.C. 1345.03 , which provide that a supplier is prohibited from doing certain things "in connection with a consumer transaction." ... We, however, conclude that the CSPA is not applicable since the transaction in this matter was a pure real estate transaction.

Section 1345.02 covers the goods or services portion of a mixed home purchase and construction transaction, but does not cover claims based solely on defects in the real property.

Morrison v. Skestos, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2004) · filed 2004-12-21

The CSPA prohibits unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices of suppliers in consumer transactions. See R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 . ... While the CSPA applies to the portion of a mixed transaction involving the transfer of goods or services, it is inapplicable to the portion of the transaction involving real property. Id.; Rose, supra. Here, because plaintiffs' claims in their complaint are limited to alleged defects in real property, not defects in defendants' construction of the house, plaintiffs' claims are not based on a "consumer transaction" as defined in the CSPA, and the CSPA is therefore inapplicable.

Section 1345.02(B)(10) forbids false representations about a consumer transaction’s warranties, rights, remedies, or obligations; it does not regulate the practice of law.

Blevins v. Hudson & Keyse, Inc. · filed 2004-09-29(B)(10)

The OCSPA generally prohibits unfair and deceptive statements or conduct in connection with defined consumer transactions. R.C. § 1345.02(B)(10), for example, forbids any representation that “a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the representation is false.” There is nothing on the face of the statute suggesting it regulates the practice of law.

Section 1345.02 does not cover monopolistic pricing practices; the Valentine Act provides the remedy for that conduct.

Johnson v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2005-10-05

The Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. Chapter 1345, prohibits suppliers from committing either unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices or unconscionable acts or practices as catalogued in R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03. ... Thus, a complaint that alleges a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act predicated upon monopolistic pricing practices does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Valentine Act, not the CSPA, provides the exclusive remedy for engaging in such conduct.

Section 1345.02(A) requires an unfair or deceptive act to be connected with a consumer transaction; conduct between the parties’ attorneys does not satisfy that requirement.

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

A claim under the CSPA requires a consumer transaction. R.C. 1345.02 (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.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive supplier practices in consumer transactions; an individual's sale of goods to a business for resale does not qualify.

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

The CSPA provides that "[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction," and "[n]o supplier shall commit an unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02 (A), 1345.03 (A). ... 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. Upon this record, Holm cannot establish a violation of the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 applies to consumer transactions; a claim against a dealer in intangibles fails when the transaction is excluded from that definition.

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

R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 prohibit suppliers from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable practices “in connection with a consumer transaction.” ... Accordingly, as Ford presented uncontradicted evidence that it qualifies as a “dealer in intangibles,” appellants’ CSPA claims against Ford must fail.

Section 1345.02(A) requires a consumer transaction; an unfair or deceptive practices claim fails when the plaintiff had no consumer transaction with the defendants.

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

The OCSPA prohibits a supplier from committing “an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” R.C. 1345.02(A). ... In light of the above, Glazer was not involved in a consumer transaction with Chase, the Reimer Firm, or First American.

Section 1345.02(A) requires a supplier's unfair or deceptive act to be connected with a consumer transaction; advertisements by a financial institution to a potential customer do not qualify when the transaction is excluded by Section 1345.01(A).

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

Furthermore, because no consumer transaction took place and appellee was not a supplier, there was no violation of R.C. 1345.02 (A), as that statute requires a supplier to commit a deceptive act in connection with a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.02 does not cover an allegedly deceptive county or city tax charge when it is invoiced as a tax.

Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Management, Ca2008-07-160 (4-6-2009) · filed 2009-04-06

While overcharging a customer for a product or service in a consumer transaction would in most circumstances be violative of the OCSPA, we believe that the county and city tax charge alleged by appellant to be unfair, deceptive and unconscionable falls outside the scope of the OCSPA precisely because it was invoiced as a tax.

Section 1345.02(A) applies to land-improvement contracts when the services are purchased primarily for personal, family, or household use.

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

In its first assignment of error, Rack Co. asserts that the trial court erred in holding the company liable for violating the CSPA, which prohibits suppliers from committing any “unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.”2 We are not persuaded. ... Although the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the statute does not apply to “pure” real estate transactions,6 our own precedent demonstrates that it does apply to land-improvement contracts as long as they are consumer transactions.7 ... Because the agreement between Rack Co. and the Kreimers was a consumer transaction, we hold that the CSPA was applicable to this case.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover title and brokerage services solely associated with the sale of a house because they are part of a pure real estate 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.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover transactions between financial institutions and their customers because they are excluded from the OCSPA’s definition of consumer transactions.

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

The OCSPA provides that “[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” O.R.C. § 1345.02(A). ... These transactions are excluded from the OCSPA’s definition of “consumer transactions.”

Section 1345.02 applies to suppliers in consumer transactions; companies that manage foreclosures for lenders, and law firms acting for them, are not suppliers in those transactions.

Clark v. Lender Processing Services · filed 2014-04-14

The plaintiffs moreover cannot bring an OCSPA claim because the defendants were not suppliers engaged in consumer transactions. The OCSPA forbids a “supplier” from committing an “unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” O.R.C. § 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 applies to unfair or deceptive practices in a consumer transaction even when the supplier and consumer have a longstanding personal relationship.

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

The CSPA provides that "no supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction." R.C. 1345.02(A). ... 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 1345.02(A) does not cover a mortgage servicer’s handling of a residential loan modification because the servicing is not a consumer transaction.

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

That said, the claim is also based on the language in the CPSA, which states, “No supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.” R.C. 1345.02(A). ... Consequently, based upon that decision, the CSPA claim was properly dismissed.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover mortgage servicing or foreclosure activity associated with a pure real estate transaction.

McNerney v. Rescap Borrower Claims Trust (In re Residential Capital, LLC) · filed 2016-11-30(A)

McNerney’s remaining two CSPA claims were also properly disallowed, because they fell outside the CSPA, insofar as they involved collateral services associated with a pure real estate transaction.

Section 1345.02 requires an unfair or deceptive supplier act connected to a consumer transaction, so a claim fails when the services do not qualify as one.

Ratcliff v. Seitz · filed 2014-10-03

In order for there to be a violation of the CSPA under R.C. 1345.02, a supplier must “commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.”

Section 1345.02 applies to a resort membership conveying rights to use facilities and services, but does not apply to the resort’s real estate transactions.

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

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.

Section 1345.02 does not cover a residential mortgage transaction with a national bank when the bank and its employees are excluded from the applicable definitions of consumer transaction and supplier.

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

While Grajzl concludes that Flenner and Lawrence were “acting as loan officers” based on testimony presented at trial, qualifying them as “suppliers” under R.C. 1345.01 and .02, the law provides otherwise. 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 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive supplier practices connected to a consumer transaction, and a complaint must allege facts supporting the consumer nature of that transaction.

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

The act states that “[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” R.C. 1345.02(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.

Section 1345.02(A) requires a consumer transaction: a vehicle sale to an LLC does not qualify even if the vehicle is intended for personal use, while a service transaction may qualify if an individual bought the services.

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

Accordingly, in order to determine whether a supplier can be held liable for violating either R.C. 1345.02(A) or 1345.03(A), it is vital to understand what is meant by a “consumer transaction.” ... 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. ... As the trial court failed to review in the first instance whether the transaction for service of the vehicle involved an individual, we agree that the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings as to Dr. Greer’s claim for Leikin’s alleged violation of the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) requires a deceptive act by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.

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

Any such claim must allege that the "deceptive act" committed by the defendant, a "supplier," was "in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02(A).

Section 1345.02(A) requires a supplier's unfair or deceptive practice to be connected to a consumer transaction; contractual privity is unnecessary.

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

However, though we agree with appellants that privity of contract is not required to state a claim under the CSPA, we are mindful that, here, appellants did not allege they engaged in any consumer transaction with Cardinal Health.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover student loan servicing because the servicer is not a supplier and servicing is not a consumer transaction.

Santagate v. Pennsylvania Higher Edn. Assistance Agency · filed 2020-06-02(A)

Santagate brought his claim pursuant to the CSPA, which provides "[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02(A). ... It follows, then, that PHEAA is not a "supplier" within the meaning of the CSPA, and that student loan servicing is not a "consumer transaction" within the meaning of the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover an insurer’s acts undertaken purely as an insurer because they are not connected with a consumer transaction.

Jones v. Ohio National Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-04-15(A)

The only provisions Jones cites are §§ 1345.02 and 1345.03, but Ohio National cannot run afoul of those because, as detailed above, it was acting purely as an insurer, and therefore its acts were not “in connection with a consumer transaction.”

Section 1345.02(A) applies to consumer transactions involving improvements to an existing home, including installation of a pool and work on an existing deck.

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

The CSPA applies to consumer transactions and prohibits unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices by suppliers in consumer transactions whether they occur before, during, or after the transaction. R.C. 1345.02(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 1345.02 applies to a supplier’s sale of services purchased primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, even if the services also benefit third parties.

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

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. ... Under the unambiguous language of the statute, it is irrelevant that his services may have also benefitted third parties.

Section 1345.02 does not require a claimant to continue owning the property involved in the transaction to bring a claim.

Martin v. Becker · filed 2025-07-03

Their continued ownership was not required to assert a claim under the CSPA.

A corporate officer who participates in deceptive consumer sales practices may be personally liable under Section 1345.02(A) in an action by the Attorney General.

State Ex Rel. Fisher v. American Courts, Inc. · filed 1994-08-01(A)

Count two alleged that the failure of American Courts, Inc. and Martin to pay pro rata refunds also constituted a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A). ... Similarly, corporate officers who have participated in alleged deceptive consumer sales practices may be held personally liable in an action by the Attorney General under R.C. Chapter 1345. ... Plaintiff-appellant’s complaint sufficiently alleged a claim against Anthony Martin for violations of R.C. 1345.01 et seq.

Section 1345.02 permits personal liability for a corporate officer who personally commits an unfair or deceptive consumer practice; officer status alone is insufficient.

Mohme v. Deaton, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2006) · filed 2006-12-28(A)

A corporate officer may not be held liable merely by virtue of his status as a corporate officer; however, the OCSPA does create a tort that imposes personal liability upon corporate officers for violations of the act performed by them in their corporate capacities. ... Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of Moburg's personal liability under the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) applies to mortgage brokers who provide services to their clients.

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

We find that the trial court erred when it determined that appellees are exempt from the CSPA. Appellees, as mortgage brokers, provide services to their clients and are subject to the relevant provisions of the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 applies to suppliers; a city that organizes mediations without regularly collecting debts is not a supplier under the section.

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

The OCSPA makes it unlawful for a supplier to engage in an unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable act or practice in regard to a consumer transaction. ... 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 1345.02 treats failure to provide a cancellation notice required by the Home Solicitation Sales Act as a consumer sales practices violation and does not require a knowing violation for individual liability.

Garber v. STS Concrete Co., L.L.C. · filed 2013-06-27

Appellants’ failure to provide a cancellation notice constituted a violation of the HSSA and consequently a violation of the CSPA under R.C. 1345.02. A requirement for knowingly committing a violation of the CSPA in order to subject one to individual liability is not found in R.C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 permits personal liability for a corporate officer who directly participates in a deceptive consumer sales practice without requiring the corporate veil to be pierced.

Luckoski v. Allstate Ins. Co. · filed 2013-12-13

As did Kenley and Zawislan, and unlike Peizer, McGarvey, a supplier, in contracting with the Luckoskis, consumers, personally took part in the commission of, or cooperated and directly engaged in, violations of the OCSPA, and he can be held liable for damages that resulted from his violations, regardless of whether or not his actions were “calculated to take advantage of the Luckoskis.” In other words, we need not determine whether to pierce the corporate veil, since McGarvey’s liability is not based upon his status as a shareholder but upon his direct actions in violating the OCSPA.

Political subdivisions are immune from civil damages for a claimed violation of § 1345.02.

Taylor v. Herring · filed 2014-12-15

Appellant then argues that, as a political subdivision, it is immune from prosecution for an alleged violation of R.C. 1345.02 or for negligence in deciding how to use school facilities. Appellant is correct as to both issues.

Section 1345.02(A) does not provide a claim against a car manufacturer for an alleged defect in a secondhand vehicle on the facts pleaded here.

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

In the case at hand, it is undisputed that Volkswagen is a car manufacturer, not a car dealership. ... Upon review, we find that Michelson's claim is not the type envisioned under the CSPA. Therefore, accepting all factual allegations as true, we find that Michelson has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the CSPA, and the trial court properly dismissed this claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

A company may be liable for an agent’s unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices, and a factual dispute over agency can preclude summary judgment.

Smith v. McDiarmid · filed 2022-06-23(A)

Therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Wynn's on Smith's CSPA claim without considering whether Wynn's could be liable for any CSPA violations committed by the Nu-Wave Defendants by virtue of an agency relationship.

Section 1345.02 allows personal liability for a corporate officer who actively participates in or directs a consumer sales practice violation, even if the officer does not personally perform the contracted work.

Sumner v. Roofing Co. · filed 2025-08-22

The CSPA aims to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable sales practices used by businesses. Among other things, the CSPA requires sellers, or “suppliers,” to accurately represent the characteristics of a product or service, honor guarantees and warranties, make no misrepresentations about the nature of their products or services, and not mislead consumers. See generally R.C. 1345.02. ... Although Mann contends that he could not have failed to perform in a workmanlike manner because there was no allegation that he performed any work at all, 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 1345.02(B)(1) prohibits a supplier from misrepresenting the performance characteristics, uses, or benefits of goods or services in a consumer transaction.

Brown v. Lyons · filed 1974-11-12(B)(1)

8. Representations by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction that goods and services have performance characteristics, uses, and benefits which, in fact, they do not have constitute deceptive acts and practices in violation of R. C. 1345.02(A). These representations also specifically violate R. C. 1345.02(B)(1).

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits deceptive acts in consumer transactions, including refusing a raincheck or an order at the advertised price after stock runs out when the supplier did not disclose the specific quantity available.

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

The next step in our inquiry is to determine whether appellee committed a deceptive act in connection with the transaction within the prohibition of R. C. 1345.02. From our review of the record, we conclude that appellee did commit a deceptive act in connection with the transaction based upon Rule COcp-3-01.03.

Section 1345.02(B)(8) makes it an unfair consumer practice for a supplier to indicate that a specific price advantage exists when it does not.

White v. Kent · filed 1988-03-30(B)(8)

While White argues that numerous unfair and unconscionable consumer practices were committed, we think it is sufficient to note that the statute specifically states that it is an unfair consumer practice for a supplier to indicate that “a specific price advantage exists, if it does not.” R.C. 1345.02(B)(8).

Section 1345.02(A) covers a supplier’s deliberate false and misleading representations that cause a consumer to rely to her detriment.

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

By making deliberate false and misleading representations to defendant, Scandinavian caused defendant to rely to her detriment. These representations were deceptive and unconscionable, therefore falling under either R.C. 1345.02(A) or 1345.03(B)(6) and supporting an award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F)(2).

Section 1345.02 permits a supplier to furnish similar merchandise of equal or greater value as a good faith substitute without committing a deceptive practice.

Gable v. Collins · filed 1990-08-09(B)(5)

Since defendant's conduct was neither deceptive nor unconscionable, the trial court did not err in finding defendant did not violate the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 covers deceptive practices in a consumer transaction, including promoting a pyramid scheme and falsely telling a consumer it is legal.

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

The scheme is deceptive in itself which is why the legislature enacted the law. Furthermore, Mrs. Blankenship testified that appellant told her the Circle of Eight was a legal activity when it plainly was not, which fulfills the requirement of a deceptive statement. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that sufficient evidence was presented to support a violation of R.C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 does not require proof of intent, but a buyer alleging a misrepresentation of a vehicle’s quality must produce evidence that the seller made the claimed representation.

Hubbard v. Bob McDorman Chevrolet · filed 1995-06-15(B)(2)

Initially, this court notes that R.C. 1345.02 does not require intent on the part of appellee. Thus, appellant did not have the burden of demonstrating that appellee intended to commit an unfair or deceptive sales practice. ... While evasiveness should not be encouraged, appellant has failed to direct this court to any evidence in the record to support her assertions that material misrepresentations were affirmatively made by appellee.

Section 1345.02(A) does not treat conduct incidental to a consumer transaction as deceptive when it lacks the capacity or tendency to deceive.

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

Although the replacement of the frames could arguably constitute a conversion, that act is not inextricably intertwined with the consumer transaction itself and does not have the capacity or tendency to deceive.

Section 1345.02(A) covers unfair or deceptive promises to repair defects made after a consumer transaction closes.

Keiber v. Spicer Construction Co., Unpublished Decision (5-28-1999) · filed 1999-05-28(A)

These continued representations that Spicer Construction would fix the items that needed repair constitute "an unfair or deceptive act or practice" after the transaction.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) prohibits deceptive misrepresentations about the quality or style of goods in a consumer sale.

Davis v. Al molargik/A M Auto Sales, Unpublished Decision (5-14-1999) · filed 1999-05-14(B)(2)

In support of his second assignment of error, appellant argues that appellee committed a deceptive act or practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02 (B)(2) by misrepresenting the quality and style of the carpet he installed in appellant's home. ... In this case, after reviewing the exhibits, photographs and the testimony of three witnesses as set forth above, the trial court found that appellee did not misrepresent the quality or amount of the carpet to be installed in appellant's home, and that the carpet and padding was installed in a workmanlike manner. ... This court has reviewed the entire record of proceedings before the trial court and, upon consideration thereof and the law, finds that there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's judgment.

Misrepresenting the grade and quality of a paint service is an unfair and deceptive act under § 1345.02.

Berry v. Maaco Auto Painting Bodyworks, Unpublished Decision (10-15-1999) · filed 1999-10-15

The magistrate found that appellee misrepresented the grade and quality of the paint service and that this conduct constituted an unfair and deceptive act. ... Based on the record before the magistrate, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the foregoing findings of the magistrate because they sufficiently set forth the reasons for the magistrate's conclusion from his analysis of the evidence before him on these points.

Section 1345.02 prohibits suppliers from making deceptive representations about a consumer product’s performance, benefits, quality, or standard.

Defrank v. Mullen, Unpublished Decision (12-2-1999) · filed 1999-12-02(B)(1)-(2)

Essentially, R.C. 1345.02 provides that a supplier may not make deceptive representations about the performance characteristics, benefits, quality, or standards of the subject of a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) requires evidence of an affirmative representation about a product’s standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model.

Patterson v. Central Mills, Inc. · filed 2000-08-21(B)(2)

Third, I agree that there is no evidence that Central Mills made a representation regarding the standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model of the shirt. Although plaintiffs contend that in designing and marketing the shirt at issue Central Mills represented that the shirt was appropriate and safe to be worn by children, plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Central Mills made such an affirmative representation.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits suppliers from using unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions; evidence of misleading vehicle advertising can support a claim under it.

Crow v. Fred Martin Motor Co., Unpublished Decision (3-19-2003) · filed 2003-03-19(A)

R.C. 1345.02 prohibits unfair and deceptive consumer sales practices. Specifically, no supplier may "commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02 (A). ... Due to the assertions in Appellant's complaint, the evidence presented, and Appellee's November 8, 1998 advertisment, we conclude that Appellee failed to establish that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Temple , 50 Ohio St.2d at 327 . Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Appellee in regards to the alleged CSPA violations.

A supplier’s attempt to rescind a guaranteed price can be deceptive when it failed to disclose that the price depended on securing low-cost supply.

Mick v. Level Propane Gases, Inc. · filed 2001-04-06(A)

By offering fixed prices, without disclosing the risk that Level was relying upon, a later attempt at rescission was both deceptive and unconscionable.

A claim under § 1345.02 fails when the supplier shows it engaged in no deceptive practice and the consumer presents no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.

Starks v. Castrucci Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2001) · filed 2001-09-05

Castrucci presented proper evidence in the form of an affidavit, see Civ.R. 56(C), showing that it did not engage in a deceptive practice as defined in R.C. 1345.02 and Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-02 and 109:4-3-16 .

Section 1345.02(A) treats a deceptive practice as a violation whether it occurs before, during, or after the consumer transaction.

Luft v. Perry Cty. Lumber Supply, Unpublished Decision (5-8-2003) · filed 2003-05-08(A)

The CSPA also states that a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice is a violation "whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction." See R.C. 1345.02 (A) and 1345.03 (A). ... However, the dates of the transactions underlying the causes of action based upon the CSPA are immaterial. As indicated above, the CSPA provides that a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice is a violation whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction. What is relevant is the "occurrence" of the violation. The statute of limitations commences to run from the date of the "occurrence" of the violation, which is not necessarily the date of any underlying transaction.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a truthful statement that ink cartridges are included deceptive when the complaint gives no reasonable basis to infer that the cartridges contain more ink than supplied.

Bellinger v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Unpublished Decision (4-10-2002) · filed 2002-04-10(A)

Even accepting all the factual allegations in Appellant's complaint as true and drawing every reasonable inference in favor of Appellant, this Court concludes that Appellant's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 (A) or R.C. 1345.03 (A). HP's representation that its printers included ink cartridges was true on its face. Moreover, Appellant's complaint fails to state any reasonable basis for its conclusion that HP's undisputedly true representation could imply in the mind of the consumer a belief that the cartridges would contain more ink than HP in fact supplied — i.e ., was a half-truth.

Section 1345.02(A) applies the same test as the Lanham Act to deceptive trade practices, allowing claims based on false advertising or likelihood of confusion while excluding the alleged generic marketing and illegal substitution claims here.

Ethex Corp. v. First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. · filed 2002-10-01(A)

The Ohio courts have said that the test for violating the Ohio statute and the Lanham Act is the same. ... Thus, this Court's analysis of Defendant's counterclaims above applies equally to this Count.

Section 1345.02 makes a dealer responsible for verifying claims in its vehicle advertisements and does not require a consumer to investigate those claims before buying.

Sauvey v. Brondes Ford, Unpublished Decision (6-13-2003) · filed 2003-06-13

Thus, it was Brondes Ford who as the supplier/dealer had the duty to verify the statements in an advertisement concerning a particular motor vehicle the dealership was offering for sale. ... Consequently, neither the Act, the Ohio Administrative Code nor Ohio case law interpreting the Act requires the consumer to "reasonably investigate" either the statements made in an advertisement or the oral statements of a supplier/dealer prior to purchase.

Section 1345.02(A) requires a supplier’s representations to be assessed in context, including written disclaimers, to determine whether they could mislead a reasonable consumer.

Knoth v. Prime Time Marketing, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004) · filed 2004-05-14(A)

UCC's representations were not unfair or deceptive if a reasonable consumer would not have been misled because of the written disclaimers that UCC had provided. Thus, under the facts of this case, whether UCC's representations to the Knoths' were deceptive presents a question of fact that must be resolved by a jury. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue.

Section 1345.02 does not make a season pass deceptive when it promises admission to rides subject to exceptions and there is no evidence of a promise of reasonable access.

Scales v. Six Flags, Inc., Unpublished Decision (8-20-2004) · filed 2004-08-20

There are no built in promises guaranteeing a pass holder special treatment regarding ride access. Hence, appellant's argument is again premised upon the alleged representation that Six Flags would provide reasonable access to rides. We reiterate, appellant has provided no evidence, absent her own self-serving statements, indicating Six Flags made such a representation. As we find no evidence of any such representation, Six Flags did not engage in any deceptive practices.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions; advertising a certificate program is not deceptive when the school awards a competency certificate and does not claim state approval.

Spafford v. Cuyahoga Comm. Coll., Unpublished Decision (4-7-2005) · filed 2005-04-07(A)

The Consumer Sales Practices Act prohibits suppliers from committing unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction. R.C. 1345.02 (A). ... First, we do not find that Tri-C's use of the word "Certificate" in its marketing literature was deceptive or unconscionable. Tri-C never stated that it was a "certified" program or that it was a "Certificate" program approved by the Board of Regents.

Sections 1345.02(B)(2) and (B)(5) focus on the supplier’s representation as the unfair or deceptive practice; a later failure to fulfill it does not itself make that practice ongoing.

Montoney v. Lincoln Logs, Unpublished Decision (1-23-2007) · filed 2007-01-23(B)(2), (B)(5)

Such representations form the basis of appellants' CSPA claims under R.C. 1345.02 (B)(2) and (B)(5), both of which focus on the representation as an unfair or deceptive practice. ... We reject appellants' argument that, as long as Lincoln Logs failed to act in accordance with its alleged representations, the statute of limitations did not begin to run.

Section 1345.02(A) does not prohibit former employees from advertising their new business to former customers when the advertising is not false or deceptive.

Frazier v. City of Kent, 2006-P-0082 (10-26-2007) · filed 2007-10-26(A)

Appellants cannot state a specific instance nor demonstrate any evidence that Fabick and Manion engaged in false advertising. Fabick and Manion did not engage in any unfair or deceptive act in advertising the opening of their new business to former customers.

Section 1345.02(A) allows a consumer’s deceptive advertising claim to proceed when the complaint alleges that the advertisements violated rules adopted by the attorney general; the consumer need not plead that the advertisements actually deceived them.

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

Ferron alleged that the ads were deceptive because they violated rules adopted by the attorney general. Assuming, as we must at this stage, that Ferron’s allegations are true, Ferron stated claims under the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits deceptive sales practices, including significantly misleading buyers about a home's construction.

Winegar v. Creekside Crossing Home Sales, 08ca001 (11-7-2008) · filed 2008-11-07(A)

To determine if a specific act or practice is a deceptive sales practice which violates the general directive of R.C. 1345.02 (A), one must look to three separate sources. ... We find the record contains sufficient competent, credible evidence to establish the Winegars had been significantly misled. Mr. Winegar testified he expected footers to be installed underneath the house, however, part of the home had no foundation under it. ... Accordingly, we find the jury's verdict with respect to the Winegars' CSPA claim was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 1345.02 applies to the construction services in a condominium sale, and refusing to sell the unit at the agreed price can be a deceptive practice.

Fine v. U.S. Erie Islands Co., Ot-07-048 (3-31-2009) · filed 2009-03-31

The CSPA provides that no supplier shall commit an unfair, deceptive or unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 . ... The fact that they subcontracted out the work does not change the fact that under the contract, appellants sold services to Fine in connection with a consumer transaction. ... Although appellants' actions were not the standard "bait and switch" tactics commonly seen in CSPA cases, we do find that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that appellants violated Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-03 (B)(3)(a) by refusing to sell Fine the condominium at the agreed upon price.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a seller’s failure to separately itemize a lift chair deceptive, but misleading statements about insurance coverage may support a claim.

Smedley v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc. · filed 2010-11-22(A)

Although we find that the trial court erred by concluding that Drug Mart was deceptive for failing to separately itemize the transaction, a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether appellee was deceived or misled regarding insurance coverage during the purchase of the lift chair. Accordingly, appellee’s claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A supplier’s representation that a required service will be available at a particular time may be unfair or deceptive when the supplier has not assessed whether it can provide the service then.

Hacker v. National College of Business & Technology · filed 2010-02-05(A)

Construing the evidence most strongly in the appellants’ favor, we believe a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether National College made an unfair or deceptive representation, at the time appellants enrolled in the surgical-technology program, that the required externships would be available during the final term of the two-year program.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make vague advertising claims of superiority actionable when a reasonable consumer would understand them as puffery.

Davis v. Volvo · filed 2012-02-24(A)

The federal courts have routinely held these types of statements to constitute puffery, which is not actionable under the CSPA. We therefore choose to follow the federal courts’ interpretations and conclude that the statements contained in the Byers’ commercials constitute puffery.

Section 1345.02 allows a deceptive practices claim when representations about a program’s approval or benefits could mislead consumers, even without proof that the supplier intended to deceive.

Thomas v. National College of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2012-10-02(B)(1), (B)(9)

Here, viewing the facts in favor of Plaintiffs’, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether National’s Surgical Technology degree program had the approval, performance characteristics, or benefits that it did not have; and/or that the National College had a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that it did not have. ... Accordingly, National’s motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims under Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02.

Section 1345.02(B)(1) does not cover representations about price; subsection (B)(8) addresses price.

Pattie v. Coach, Inc. · filed 2014-07-02(B)(1)

“Benefit” in § 1345.02(B)(1) does not refer to price, which is dealt with in § 1345.02(B)(8).

Section 1345.02(B)(8) prohibits advertising a price advantage that does not exist; an everyday discount may be deceptive if it offers no actual savings.

Martin v. Lamrite West, Inc. · filed 2015-09-03(B)(8)

To that end, R.C. 1345.02(B)(8) makes it a deceptive act in a consumer transaction for a supplier to represent “that a specific price advantage exists, if it does not.” ... But that argument concedes the plaintiffs’ point — if the prices are always 40 percent off, the advertised discount is illusory and thus deceptive. ... Under either scenario, reasonable minds could find the practice deceptive, so the court erred by granting summary judgment.

Section 1345.02 prohibits suppliers from deceptively representing a product’s quality or durability in a consumer transaction.

Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 2016-01-27(B)(2)

Ohio Plaintiffs assert that PPG knowingly misrepresented that the Rescue It! Products were chip-, peel-, and crack-resistant, were suitable for providing protection to decks from harsh weather conditions, and lasted longer than ordinary deck paints and stains. This alleged deception, if proven true, would violate O.R.C. 1345.02, which prohibits “suppliers” from committing “an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.”

Section 1345.02(B)(9) prohibits a supplier from falsely claiming sponsorship, approval, or affiliation; a claim of expertise alone does not establish a violation.

Barrett-O'Neill v. LALO, LLC · filed 2016-03-22(B)(9)

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that defendant, regardless of any claimed expertise in antiques, represented that it had a “sponsorship, approval, or affiliation” with any organization or agency.

Section 1345.02 does not make an invoice deceptive merely because it lists more motor oil than a car holds when the customer bought a fixed-price service package that included an oil change.

Hathorn v. Motor · filed 2016-07-27(B)(6)

Based on this evidence, we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of fact concerning whether Dana Motor acted in a deceptive manner. Hathorn and Blount got what they paid for—a service package that included a motor oil change for a fixed price.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) treats false representations about a consumer good’s quality as deceptive acts.

Hubbard v. Aase Sales, LLC · filed 2018-06-11(B)(2)

Having found, supra, AASE Sales made misrepresentations and breached its express warranty relative to the vehicle, we find AASE Sales engaged in a deceptive act, in violation of the CSPA.

A claim that a supplier misrepresented gasoline’s characteristics or quality fails when the buyer cannot show that the gasoline was contaminated and caused the alleged damage.

Henderson v. Speedway, L.L.C. · filed 2018-11-15(B)(1)-(2)

A supplier, such as Speedway, is prohibited from representing that the gasoline had performance characteristics and benefits that it does not have or representing that the gasoline is a particular standard, quality, or grade if it is not. R.C. 1345.02(B)(1)-(2). ... But, as mentioned, Henderson must show that the gasoline he purchased was contaminated and that contamination caused the damage to his car. Again, because Henderson failed to preserve the fuel and damaged auto parts, he cannot demonstrate that the gasoline proximately caused damage to his vehicle.

Section 1345.02(A) does not require an advertisement to disclose a coupon application order that does not materially limit the advertised offer.

Henry v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. · filed 2019-05-28(A)

Since the order of application did not constitute any limitation, much less a “material limitation,” on the offer contained in the Kohl’s Cash advertisement—the offer to purchase Kohl’s merchandise and earn a Kohl’s Cash coupon—Kohl’s did not violate the advertisement rule by failing to disclose it in close proximity to the offer.

Section 1345.02(B)(8) prohibits representing that a specific price advantage exists when it does not; an accurate multiple-unit promotion does not violate it merely because the same proportionate discount applies to fewer units.

Anderson v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc. · filed 2021-03-11(B)(8)

Anderson presented no evidence that any of Discount Drug Mart’s multiple-unit pricing promotions represented that a specific price advantage existed when it did not and presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could otherwise find that Discount Drug Mart’s representations in its multiple-unit pricing promotions were false, material and would mislead a reasonable consumer.

A claim under § 1345.02(B)(2) and (B)(10) fails when the buyer offers no evidence that the seller made the alleged representations about the vehicle or its engine.

Lapkovitch v. Rankl & Ries Motorcars, Inc. · filed 2021-12-16(B)(2), (B)(10)

Appellant has failed to put forth evidence that any representations were made to him by Appellee with regard to the vehicle or the engine. ... We therefore find Appellee is entitled to summary judgment on Appellant’s Violation of the Consumer Sales’ Practices Act claim.

Section 1345.02(A) permits a deceptive practice claim when a supplier’s advertising plausibly gives a reasonable consumer a false impression.

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

Therefore, plaintiffs have pled plausibly that Cedar Fair’s websites had “the likelihood of inducing in the mind of the consumer a belief which is not in accord with the facts, . . . ‘” Teeters, supra, 869 N.E.2d at 767. Accordingly, plaintiffs have stated a viable claim that Cedar Fair violated § 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 treats a motor vehicle supplier’s failure to include material presale representations in the written contract as a deceptive practice under the director’s rule.

Clayton v. McCary · filed 1976-12-29

With regard to the instant case, defendant’s statement or representation that the auto was in “A-Number One” condition was not made a part of the sale order form. Nor were any of his other material pre-sale statements incorporated into the sales agreement. Rather, the form constituting the contract of sale indicated that the auto was “SOLD AS IS” without any warranties. It thus appears that defendant committed a deceptive trade act in not integrating such statement into the written agreement. The Court, therefore, finds that defendant violated § 1345.02.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions, including omitting material promises from a written vehicle sales contract and raising the sales price with an added charge.

Richardson v. Car Lot Co. · filed 1983-11-07(A)

Car Lot violated R.C. 1345.02(A) of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. ... Car Lot violated Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-16(B)(22) and committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice by failing to include the trade-in and the ninety-day warranty. It violated Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) by raising the sales price $325 for “delivery, get ready, and handling.”

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices, including a dealer’s failure to make a vehicle available as advertised or include material representations in the sales contract.

Gaylan v. Dave Towell Cadillac, Inc. · filed 1984-03-08(A)

Plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did commit deceptive and unfair acts and practices in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A) and Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-16(B)(5) and (22).

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits a dealer from unfairly or deceptively asking consumers to cover a trade-in lease payoff shortfall after agreeing to pay it.

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

Moreover, it was unfair and deceptive because the Freys believed that Vin Devers had agreed to pay the amount owed on the Toyota lease and were then informed, after the fact, that they were responsible for a part of that payment. ... Accordingly, the trial court did err in finding that Vin Devers did not engage in an unfair or deceptive practice.

Section 1345.02 prohibits backdating a retail installment contract as a deceptive sales act.

Bramley's Water Conditioning v. Hagen · filed 1985-06-24

The record indicates that the plaintiff backdated the retail installment contract. This was a deceptive sales act, R.C. 1345.28, in violation of R.C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 prohibits a dealer from giving a misleading answer about a car’s prior use that omits its rental ownership.

State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 1992-09-21(A)

We find that appellee’s omission of the car’s prior ownership by Budget Rent-A-Car had the likelihood of inducing Nelson to believe that appellee was the only owner of the vehicle. ... Therefore, appellant has presented evidence to sustain his burden of establishing that appellee violated R.C. 1345.02 by violating Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-08 and 109:4-3-16(B)(3).

Section 1345.02, as defined by a regulation, prohibits a motor vehicle dealer from lowering a trade-in price without a reasonable basis at the time of reappraisal.

McDonald v. Datsun · filed 1989-01-23

R.C. 1345.05(B)(2) provides that the Director of Commerce may adopt substantive rules defining acts or practices that violate R.C. 1345.02, relating to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction. ... Bedford failed to prove a reasonable basis for the devaluation at the time it was made. ... Given the total lack of any competent evidence on that point, the trial court did not err in its conclusions.

Section 1345.02(B)(1) and (2) prohibits deceptive representations about a product’s characteristics or quality; a dealer’s description of this used car as being in “A-l condition” was not deceptive given its age, mileage, and repair history.

Walker v. Cadillac Motor Car Division · filed 1989-06-12(B)(1) and (2)

The salesperson’s representations here did not constitute a deceptive trade practice in light of the fact that the car (1) was five years old, (2) had been driven over 60,000 miles, and (3) did not require significant repairs, aside from those related to the theft of the vehicle, until seven months after purchase.

Section 1345.02 prohibits a dealer from withholding the known extent of prior damage to a new vehicle when the retail repair cost exceeds $300.

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

Upon consideration of the foregoing, this court finds that: (1) Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(14) clearly provides that a supplier commits an unfair or deceptive act or practice when it has actual knowledge of the previous defect and/or damage to a new motor vehicle and fails to disclose the defect and/or extent of the previous damage, when the retail repair cost of such damage exceeds or exceeded $300; ... (6) there remains no genuine issue of any material fact and, when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of appellant, reasonable minds can only conclude that appellant committed an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02 by virtue of violating Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(14); and (7) appellee was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits a dealer from presenting a negotiable delivery and handling fee as mandatory and charging it for services that do not apply to the vehicle.

Motzer Dodge Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Ohio Attorney General · filed 1994-06-06(A)

R.C. 1345.02(A) prohibits a supplier from committing unfair or deceptive acts in a consumer transaction. ... After viewing the record, we find that the trial court’s application of the Act to appellant’s fee was proper.

Section 1345.02(A) treats a car dealer’s failure to deliver a certificate of title as an unfair or deceptive practice.

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

The courts have found that failure to deliver a certificate of title for a motor vehicle is an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A). ... Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in Royal’s favor. We reverse and vacate summary judgment for defendant and enter summary judgment for the plaintiff requiring Royal to deliver the certificate of title and registration to plaintiff.

Section 1345.02 does not require a lessor to itemize acquisition or similar fees when the customer knows and pays the agreed total lease charge.

Kelley v. Ford Motor Credit Company · filed 2000-03-03

Nonetheless, we are convinced that there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants-appellees committed an unfair or deceptive act within the meaning of the statute. Kejley and Back have not cited any authority under the CSPA stating that a lessor is required to itemize acquisition or similar charges, and our review of the record persuades us that there was no violation of the Act in the case at bar.

Section 1345.02(A) treats a used car dealer’s failure to display the required window form disclosing the absence of a warranty as a deceptive sales practice.

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

Proper disclosure by the dealer requires the display of the window form, Section 455.2, Title 16, C.F.R. A failure to follow these rules establishes a deceptive sales practice under R.C. 1345.02 (A).

Section 1345.02 does not support relief for deceptive financing paperwork defects that had no bearing on the consumer’s decision to enter or rescind the contract.

Rusk Industries v. Alexander, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2002) · filed 2002-05-03

In light of these cases, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting Rusk summary judgment on the Alexanders' claims. Despite the undisputed evidence that Rusk technically violated the CSPA, those violations had no bearing on the Alexanders' decision to enter into the contract for waterproofing services or to rescind the contract.

Section 1345.02(A) permits an unfair or deceptive practices claim to proceed when disputed evidence could show that a supplier misled consumers about their eligibility for financing.

Walker v. Dominion Homes, Inc. · filed 2005-11-15(A)

Given the parties’ differing interpretations of the confidential opinion letter, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendants’ actions were unfair or deceptive under R.C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02(A) treats failure to deliver a motor vehicle certificate of title as an unfair and deceptive practice.

Daimlerchrysler Serv. N. Am. v. Lennington, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006) · filed 2006-03-31(A)

Case law dictates that failure to deliver a certificate of title for a motor vehicle is an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02 (A).

Section 1345.02 treats a seller's failure to provide true and complete odometer disclosures as an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice.

Noble v. Atomic Auto Sales, Inc., 89431 (1-24-2008) · filed 2008-01-24

We also find that Atomic's failure to provide true and complete odometer disclosures in this matter constituted unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice under R.C. 1345.02 and unconscionable consumer sales practices under R.C. 1345.03 .

Section 1345.02 does not impose liability for failing to disclose or repair defects in a used car when the buyer signed an as-is warranty disclaimer and produced no written agreement changing its terms.

Tisdale v. Direct Detail · filed 2012-07-19

Therefore, as a matter of law, appellees cannot be held liable under R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 for failing to disclose and repair any defects in the car.

Section 1345.02’s general rule yields to the later, more specific requirements of section 1345.81 when an insurer provides a vehicle repair estimate using non-OEM parts.

Dillon v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. · filed 2014-02-06(A)

R.C. 1345.01 and R.C. 1345.02 conflict with R.C. 1345.81 with respect to their application to insurers and cannot be applied so as to give effect to all of the provisions. ... R.C. 1345.81 is both the more recent and the more specific statutory provision and thus, any irreconcilable conflict in the wording of the general provisions and R.C. 1345.81 must be resolved in favor of R.C. 1345.81.

Section 1345.02 does not cover an insurer’s repair estimate that is not connected with a consumer transaction.

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

Farmers’ provision of a repair estimate to the Dillons was not in connection with a consumer transaction and therefore was not an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” pursuant to R.C. ... 1345.02.

A seller’s assurances that a used car was a family vehicle suitable for long-distance driving can create a factual issue about whether the seller deceptively represented its quality.

Campbell v. Wallace · filed 2020-12-18(B)(2)

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellee violated R.C. 1345.02(B)(2) in making representations that the car was a family vehicle and that he would have no problem driving the car to Florida.

Section 1345.02(A) does not require a car dealer arranging financing to disclose the lender’s buy rate or the dealer’s markup when it discloses the interest rate offered to the customer.

Scott v. Ford · filed 2021-01-28(A)

Sarchione had no duty to disclose anything other than the interest rate available to Scott for the loan application submitted. The evidence does not support any violation under the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(B)(5) does not make a dealer’s refusal to transfer title deceptive when the buyer cannot obtain financing required to complete a conditional sale.

Loury v. Westside Automotive Group · filed 2022-10-13(B)(5)

And because it is undisputed that Loury was unable to obtain financing, she was not entitled to keep the car, and Westside was not required to transfer title of the car to her. Therefore, Westside did not commit a deceptive or unfair act by failing to transfer title to the car to Loury.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) prohibits a supplier from representing that a vehicle meets a particular standard or quality when material defects mean it does not.

Burgett v. SD Orrville, L.L.C. · filed 2025-12-31(B)(2)

Based on the foregoing, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Burgett, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that Serpentini violated R.C. 1345.02(B)(2) by claiming that the vehicle was “of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not[.]” There was sufficient evidence that Serpentini sold the vehicle with undisclosed structural damage, contrary to Serpentini’s representation that the vehicle had been thoroughly inspected and was safe, roadworthy, and free from damage regarding features that were material to the transaction.

Section 1345.02(A) applies to deceptive practices in collecting a debt arising from a consumer transaction, including collection by a supplier’s assignee or agent.

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

It is this court’s opinion that the intent of E. C. Chapter 1345, particularly relating to the various sections referred to, were to prohibit certain types of consumer practices to apply from the initial contact between the supplier and the consumer until the relationship terminates. In other words, that relationship continues from the initial inception between consumer and supplier until, as in this case, the debt is fully paid.

Section 1345.02 treats debt collection notices that simulate official documents and falsely suggest legal action as deceptive practices.

Liggins v. May Co. · filed 1977-10-26

The use of such notices in debt collection is a deceptive act or practice as defined at R. C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02(A) treats a supplier’s practice of suing consumers in a distant forum to collect debts as unfair.

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

Defendants-appellants, United Research, Inc. and Universal Acceptance Corp., appeal a trial court judgment finding that defendants’ practice of suing consumers in a distant forum is deceptive and unfair pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 and enjoining defendants from continuing such practice. ... Thus, we hold that defendants’ conduct is an unfair practice that violates R.C. 1345.02(A).

Section 1345.02(A) covers attempts to collect a consumer obligation after a consumer transaction.

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

The collection of debts associated with consumer transactions is within the purview of the OCSPA since it covers acts which occur before, during, or after the transaction. ... Instead, we merely conclude that any debt collection actions taken by Grout and Greene Credit are subject to the provisions of the OCSPA, since they constituted an attempt to collect a consumer obligation.

Section 1345.02(A) covers a supplier’s false representation of a legal proceeding’s status while collecting a consumer debt.

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

It is a deceptive and unconscionable act or practice, as defined by R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 , for a supplier, in the process of collecting or attempting to collect upon a debt arising from a consumer transaction to falsely represent the status of any legal proceeding.

Section 1345.02 prohibits a debt collection letter that deceptively exaggerates the creditor’s remedies and the consequences of nonpayment.

Edwards v. McCormick · filed 2001-03-30(A)

The Court therefore finds the letter to be “deceptive,” in violation of Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.02.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair practices in consumer transactions; a supplier may violate it by refusing a customer's attempted payment and assigning the debt for collection.

Havens-Tobias v. Eagle, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2003) · filed 2003-03-28(A)

Schwan's assigned the Tobiases' debt to MM while the Tobiases were making attempts to pay the amount they owed. We recognize that the tendered payment was only for the amount of the second check; however, it appears that Schwan's never gave the Tobiases notice that the first check had been returned. We believe that, accepting the facts alleged in the Tobiases' complaint to be true, reasonable minds could conclude that Schwan's actions violated the CSPA. Therefore, dismissal of that claim was not appropriate.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a supplier’s assignment of dishonored checks for collection actionable when the consumers knew both checks had been returned and had not tendered full payment.

Havens-Tobias v. Schwan's Sales Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2005-06-03(A)

The Tobiases contend that Schwan’s violated R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 of the CSPA when it refused to accept payment for the dishonored checks and then assigned the matter over to M&M for collection purposes. ... The Tobiases have failed to offer any evidence that Schwan’s violated the CSPA with respect to the assignment of the dishonored checks to M&M.

Section 1345.02(B)(10) can cover a debt collector’s false claim of holder-in-due-course status in an affidavit filed in court.

Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp. · filed 2004-09-29(B)(10)

The Court finds that defendant’s “holder in due course” statement is subject to liability under R.C. 1345.02(B)(10), for the same reasons subjecting the statement to liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2) discussed above.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions; debt collection practices can violate it, but an FDCPA violation does not automatically establish a violation.

Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency · filed 2006-12-05(A)

The OCSPA provides that “[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.” Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02. ... While the Court holds that Defendants debt collection practices constitute violations of the FDCPA and the OCSPA in this case, it does not mean to suggest that a violation of the FDCPA is a violation of the OCSPA in all cases.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions; violations of federal debt collection law can establish a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act without a separate basis for liability.

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

The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act prohibits "suppliers" from "committing] unfair or deceptive practice[s]" or "unconscionable act[s] or practice[s] in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 . ... In the present case, the magistrate specifically identified the basis of D.A.N.'s liability under the Consumer Sales Practices Act as its violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, i.e. "falsely representing that a debt was owed when it was already time barred" and "threatening legal action when it could not legally be advanced." ... For the foregoing reasons, it was not necessary to establish a "separate basis" for violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Section 1345.02(A) does not support a claim based on a debt collector’s complaint and account statement when the challenged representation is not false and the statement is not deceptive.

Rice v. Great Seneca Financial Corp. · filed 2008-05-21(A)

Because this Court has found that: (1) Defendant JB & R’s representation in paragraph two of the state court complaint was not false; and (2) Defendant Great Seneca’s Exhibit A account statement was not deceptive, there is nothing to sustain Plaintiffs OCSPA claim.

Creditors or agencies that regularly collect consumer debts can be suppliers engaged in consumer transactions under Section 1345.02(A).

Evans v. Midland Funding LLC · filed 2008-08-28(A)

The OCSPA prohibits a “supplier” from committing “an unfair or deceptive act or practice” or an “unconscionable act or practice” in connection with a “consumer transaction.” O.R.C. §§ 1345.02(A), 1345.03(A). ... Under Ohio law, creditors or agencies who regularly engage in the practice of collecting consumer debts are suppliers engaged in consumer transactions. ... Defendants will not be dismissed on the basis that Plaintiffs have insufficiently pleaded that Defendants are suppliers engaged in consumer transactions.

Section 1345.02 reaches deceptive lawsuits filed by a law firm to collect a consumer debt.

Turner v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss · filed 2011-03-04(B)(10)

This Court now finds the rationale of the court in Delawder persuasive, and also finds that the filing of deceptive lawsuits violates the Ohio Consumer Protection Act.

Section 1345.02(A) permits a consumer claim against a debt buyer and its collection attorney for demanding an interest rate unavailable under the law.

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

In this case, from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the prayer for relief claimed entitlement to a rate of interest that was unavailable under the law to FRIC. We affirm the appellate court’s decision that Taylor Jarvis established a prima facie case against FRIC and Cheek under the FDCPA and the OCSPA on this issue.

Section 1345.02(A) allows a claim against a debt collection law firm for alleged false representations in foreclosure litigation.

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

Because federal and Ohio courts have found that false representations in connection with debt collection litigation are actionable under the OCSPA, the Court holds that the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint plausibly state a claim for OCSPA violations against Barham Legal.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make the filing of colorable collection claims an unfair or deceptive practice merely because the claims may not prevail.

Vesper v. Lebanon · filed 2021-12-27(A)

Based upon these facts, and for the reasons explained below, the legal claims asserted by Otterbein against the Vespers were colorable and the assertion of those claims does not constitute an unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable act or practice under the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction; the hospital’s use of its abbreviated name did not establish a violation.

Charity v. Paluscsak · filed 2024-08-08

He does not demonstrate that under R.C. 1345.02, SVCMC committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.02(A) does not require proof of common-law intent to deceive when a supplier commits an act defined as deceptive.

Riley v. Enterprise Furniture Co. · filed 1977-12-28(A)

Under the Act, commission of an act or practice which has been defined as deceptive entitles the consumer to recovery. Common law intent to deceive is not a prerequiste to violation of the Act.

Section 1345.02(A) does not require proof that a supplier intended to deceive.

Thomas v. Sun Furniture & Appliance Co. · filed 1978-12-13(A)

From an analysis of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (R. C. 1345.01 through 1345.13; Amended Substitute H. B. 103,134 Ohio Laws 1233) we conclude that the legislature did not contemplate that proof of an intent to deceive should be required to establish a violation of R. C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 does not require a consumer to prove that the supplier intended to deceive.

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

A consumer does not need to prove intent or scienter to prove a violation of R.C. 1345.02, but proof of scienter is required under R.C. 1345.03. ... Given the fact that there is conflicting testimony as to what was or was not represented, and construing the evidence in favor of appellants, we find that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for appellee on the CSPA claim under R.C. 1345.02.

A consumer proves an act prohibited by Section 1345.02 and its implementing rules by a preponderance of the evidence, without proving the supplier’s intent or knowledge.

Robinson v. McDougal · filed 1988-11-14

As we have heretofore determined, plaintiff was not resting her right to cancellation of the installment contract or to rescind the transaction on the grounds of common-law fraud or mistake, or other equitable grounds, but was relying on acts prohibited by R.C. 1345.02, as defined by rules adopted under R.C. 1345.05(B)(2). It was not necessary, therefore, for her to prove malice, intent, knowledge or any other condition of the mind of the defendants, but merely to prove that the act or acts prohibited by statute and rule had occurred. ... In that the acts here involved may be proved by mere proof that the act did occur, it is our opinion that the degree of required proof is by a preponderance of the evidence and not by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 1345.02 makes deceptive consumer sales practices actionable without requiring proof that the supplier intended or knew of the deception.

Funk v. Montgomery amc/jeep/renault · filed 1990-06-13

It is important to note that violation of R.C. 1345.02 does not require either intent or knowledge on the part of the alleged perpetrator; rather, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of "has the likelihood of inducing a state of mind in the consumer that is not in accord with the facts."

Section 1345.02(A) does not require proof that the supplier knowingly committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

D & K Roofing, Inc. v. Pleso · filed 1991-09-16(A)

R.C. 1345.02(A) makes no mention of a supplier’s knowledge as a prerequisite to liability. It is not necessary that the supplier knowingly commit the act or practice.

Section 1345.02 does not require proof of coercion to establish a deceptive consumer sales practice.

Shaver v. Standard Oil Co. · filed 1993-06-30

No element of coercion need be proved, and individual questions need not predominate over common questions. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied class certification for the claim based upon alleged violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act.