Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02

A supplier’s failure to provide the required cancellation notice, commencement of work before cancellation rights expire, and retention of the buyer’s deposit constitute a deceptive practice under § 1345.02(A).

Gross v. Bildex, Inc. · filed 1994-09-26(A)

Further, the court finds that Bildex’s failure to provide a notice of cancellation pursuant to R.C. 1345.23 and Bildex’s commencing of performance in violation of the prohibition contained in R.C. 1345.22, as well as its retention of the plaintiffs security deposit, constitute “a deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction” in violation of R.C. 1345.28 and 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions; a claim requires evidence of such a practice.

Sproles v. Simpson Fence Co. · filed 1994-12-12

Pursuant to the OCSPA, 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. R.C. 1345.02(B) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 109:4-3 provide a nonexclusive list of deceptive or unfair acts or practices. R.C. 1345.03(B) lists several factors considered relevant to a determination of whether a given act or practice is unconscionable. However, the record contains no evidence that appellee’s conduct in any way amounted to a deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable act or practice prohibited by the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02 requires proof that the supplier committed a prohibited act, but does not require proof of intent to deceive.

Nicholas v. Lowrey, Unpublished Decision (4-3-1998) · filed 1998-04-03

After reviewing the trial court's decision, we cannot find that the trial court required Nicholas to prove that Brownie's had an intent to deceive. Instead, it is clear that the trial court required Nicholas to prove that Brownie's committed one of the acts, which if proven, would amount to a per se violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Section 1345.02(A) treats a supplier’s failure to complete repairs within the promised time as a deceptive consumer sales practice.

Baker v. Tri-County Harley Davidson, Inc., Unpublished Decision (11-15-1999) · filed 1999-11-15(A)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 evidence of three separate violations of the CSPA by appellant. First, appellant told appellee that the work would be completed in one week. After nearly two months, the work was still not complete, and was therefore untimely.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits deceptive sales practices, including statements that give a buyer a false impression of a product's features and the omission of material promises from the sales contract.

Burton v. Elsea, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-27-1999) · filed 1999-12-27(A)

Burton's testimony, if believed, establishes that Elsea representatives used statements to give Burton a false impression regarding features of the mobile home and failed to integrate material representations and promises into the written sales contract. These acts constitute deceptive sales practices as defined under Ohio Admin. Code 109:4-3-16 (3) and (22). A dealer who commits a deceptive sales practice is guilty of violating the CSPA, and the consumer is entitled to remedies. R.C. 1345.02 (A) and 1345.09 . Because questions of credibility are reserved for the trier of fact, we find that the trial court erred in taking the question of whether Elsea violated the CSPA from the jury.

Section 1345.02 does not specifically enumerate late completion, work beyond the contract price, or failure to timely disclose an unusual land condition as violations.

Brzezinski v. Feuerwerker, Unpublished Decision (9-14-2000) · filed 2000-09-14

None of the three alleged breaches constitutes a violation specifically enumerated in either R.C. 1345.02 or R.C. 1345.03 .

Section 1345.02 does not require intent on the part of a supplier.

Iiams v. Bullock Garages, Inc., Unpublished Decision (9-20-1999) · filed 1999-09-20

Initially, we are compelled to note that R.C. 1345.02 does not require intent on the part of a supplier.

Section 1345.02 does not require proof of an intent to deceive in an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices claim.

Keeton v. Hinkle, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2000) · filed 2000-03-10

Under R.C. 1345.02 , actions alleging unfair and deceptive consumer sales practices do not require evidence of an intent to deceive.

Section 1345.02 requires a finding of an unfair or deceptive sales practice; a finding of poor workmanship alone does not establish a violation.

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

However, the jury was not asked to find whether Artistic Pools had been unfair or deceptive when it failed to perform in a workmanlike manner.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions, including failure to honor repair warranties, unreasonable repair delays without notice, and failure to redeliver a customer's car.

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

R.C. 1345.02 (A) states that "no supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." The trial court found that the Leaches had violated R.C. Chapter 1345 by engaging in the following unfair or deceptive sales practices: (1) failure to honor timely the verbal warranties; (2) failure to repair or replace the used automobile transmission and engine within a reasonable time; (3) failure to give Croskey notice of the delay in commencement of the repairs beyond eight weeks without an offer of a refund, or without advising Croskey of the reason for the delay; (4) failure to take reasonable action to seek another engine or to fix the transmission; and (5) failure to redeliver the automobile or report it stolen within a reasonable time after the second theft of the keys. ... Therefore, there was ample competent and credible evidence to support the trial court's judgment that the Leaches had violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Section 1345.02(A) does not require knowing or intentional deception, but a claim requires evidence of a deceptive act.

Hayes v. Osterman Jewelers, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002) · filed 2002-04-19(A)

A violation of R.C. 1345.02 (A) does not require that the deception be knowing or intentional. ... We conclude, however, that Hayes failed to offer any facts creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Osterman committed a deceptive act, knowingly or otherwise.

Section 1345.02 permits a claim for an unfair or deceptive practice despite a supplier’s bona fide error if the consumer shows some damages.

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

We never held, nor do we now, that a "bona fide error" negates a claim under R.C. 1345.02 if a consumer shows some damages.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions without requiring proof of a supplier’s wrongful intent.

Longbrake v. Rebarchek (In Re Rebarchek) · filed 2002-09-19(A)

By comparison, under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, which applies to solely “suppliers” and “consumers,” a violation occurs when a supplier commits any unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. O.R.C. § 1345.02(A). As it pertains to this requirement, however, no actual showing of a supplier’s wrongful intent is required; instead, the consumer must simply show that the supplier did or said something that had “the likelihood of inducing in the mind of the consumer a belief that is not in accord with the facts.”

Section 1345.02 prohibits conduct likely to induce a consumer to believe something contrary to the facts, even if the supplier did not intend to deceive.

Davis v. Axelrod Chrysler Plymouth, Unpublished Decision (1-30-2003) · filed 2003-01-30(A)

We determine that such an act, in light of Davis' initial expectations and overwhelming documentation indicating the true nature of the vehicle, is not sufficiently deceptive to likely induce a consumer into a false belief actionable under the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 requires evidence of deceptive behavior or failure to comply with a warranty in connection with a consumer transaction.

Temple v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2005-05-25(A)

Thus, in order to make out a CSPA claim, the Temples had to present evidence that, in relation to a consumer transaction, either Fleetwood or Cummins engaged in deceptive behavior or failed to comply with a warranty.

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

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

Proof of intent to deceive is not required to establish a violation of R.C. 1345.02 .

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

Drenning v. Blue Ribbon Homes, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007) · filed 2007-03-23(A)

Proof of intent to deceive is not required to establish a violation of R.C. 1345.02 .

Section 1345.02 requires consumers alleging deceptive inducement to present evidence that the supplier’s representation was false or misleading.

Hanna v. Groom, 07ap-502 (2-26-2008) · filed 2008-02-26

Because, in support of their CSPA claim, defendants claimed plaintiff's misrepresentation about whether he was bonded or insured deceptively induced defendants to enter an agreement for the paving of defendants' driveway, the burden was on defendants, not plaintiff, to proffer evidence in support of their claim of deceptive inducement based on plaintiff's lack of bonding or insurance.

A consumer who already knew the terms an advertisement allegedly omitted cannot recover for deception under § 1345.02(A).

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC · filed 2010-12-28(A)

As the district court properly noted, these cases, taken together, stand ... for the proposition “that a plaintiff who could not have been deceived by the a supplier's conduct cannot prevail on an OCSPA claim.”

Section 1345.02(B) identifies deceptive practices; a claimant must identify the alleged practice and provide evidence of it to survive summary judgment.

Kott v. Gleneagles Professional Builders & Remodelers, Inc. · filed 2012-01-27(B)

As the trial court noted, R.C. 1345.02(B) enumerates ten deceptive practices that bring a transaction within the ambit of the act. Appellant failed to point to which of these practices he believes appellees engaged in and did not provide any specific evidence to support any given infraction. Moreover, a fair reading of appellant’s complaint as a whole does not reveal allegations, let alone evidence, that could reasonably demonstrate a violation of the act. Again, because in a motion for summary judgment, the burden to produce evidence of a claim is with the party advancing the claim and appellant failed to meet that burden, appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 1345.02 requires evidence of an unfair or deceptive act; a claim based on an allegedly unperformed test and interference with repairs fails when the test was performed and interference is unsupported.

Mueller v. All-Temp Refrig., Inc. · filed 2014-06-23(A)

While Shirley did testify that Pohlman had allegedly told her that he had lied about performing a blower door test, she also testified that he did, in fact, perform the blower door test and gave her the results to that test at their January 2008 meeting. Further, we cannot find any evidence in the record that Pohlman interfered with the Muellers’ efforts to fix the geothermal unit.

Section 1345.02 does not require a consumer to investigate a vehicle’s history to avoid a seller’s alleged deception.

Jones v. J. Duran, Inc. · filed 2020-09-25(A)

Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the CSPA does not place responsibility on Jones, as consumer, to avoid JDI’s alleged deception.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts by suppliers; a consumer alleging deception must show a material misrepresentation, deceptive act, or omission that affected the purchase decision.

Wilder v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC · filed 2022-03-10

The CSPA provides that suppliers like Defendant cannot commit unfair or deceptive acts against consumers as described in R.C. § 1345.02, nor unconscionable acts as described in R.C. § 1345.03. ... To make out a prima facie claim under the CSPA, a plaintiff must “show a material misrepresentation, deceptive act or omission” that impacted the decision to purchase the item at issue. ... There is no showing that the particulars of installation weighed into Plaintiff’s decision to purchase the refrigerator and stove.

A claim under § 1345.02 requires a deceptive or unfair practice and an injury caused by it.

Beeney v. FCA US, LLC · filed 2023-10-20

Although the statutes are not identical, they all require a Plaintiff to at least establish that (a) the Defendant engaged in one or more deceptive, unfair, or fraudulent practices in trade or commerce, and (b) the Plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of that deceptive, unfair, or fraudulent practice.

A claim under § 1345.02 requires factual allegations supporting a violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act; unsupported legal conclusions are insufficient.

Grace v. Exeter Fin. · filed 2024-12-26

A review of the complaint shows that it fails to set forth a proper claim against Exeter for violation of the Ohio CSPA and refers to criminal provisions without pleading civil causes of action.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices, including a contractor’s false business representations and failure to respond after taking a deposit.

Daniels v. True · filed 1988-12-09(A)

The court finds that defendant Ralph True’s actions were unfair and deceptive, in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and unconscionable, in violation of R.C. 1345.03(A).

Section 1345.02 applies to a restaurant’s deceptive deposit practices when the restaurant supplies food and services for a wedding reception.

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

We believe our conclusion best comports a liberal construction of Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-07 such as to fully promote the purposes and policies of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. Defendant’s second assignment of error is hereby dismissed.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices, including a motor vehicle repair supplier’s failure to provide the required initial disclosure form.

Simpson v. Smith · filed 1987-04-03(A)

The court finds that defendant Smith committed an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice as prohibited by R.C. 1345.02(A), by violating Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-13 (A)(1).

Section 1345.02(A) applies to residential gas repair services, and practical difficulty does not excuse a supplier from the required estimate notice.

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

After a thorough review of the applicable law and the facts in the instant case, we conclude that the Consumer Sales Practice Act is fully applicable. ... Accordingly, pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-05(B), it was necessary for appellee to orally inform appellant at the time of the initial contact and prior to the commencement of work of appellant’s right to receive a written or oral estimate and to provide him with a form that conformed to the requirements of Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-05(A)(l). ... However, difficulty or impracticability is not a consideration in application.

Section 1345.02 prohibits deceptive consumer sales practices, including failure to meet the repair estimate requirements; an insurance carrier is not the consumer’s representative for those requirements without signed authorization.

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

As provided in R.C. 1345.05(B), the Attorney General has adopted substantive rules defining deceptive acts or practices which violate R.C. 1345.02. ... For the purpose of satisfying Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-05, it cannot be inferred that an insurance carrier is acting as the consumer’s representative absent its signed authorization on the purported estimate.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in repair services; homeowner-authorized changes did not violate it under the parties’ course of dealing.

Finn v. Krumroy Construction Co. · filed 1990-07-05

This statutory section makes it unlawful for one performing repairs or services to engage in conduct determined unfair, deceptive or unconscionable, as provided in R.C. 1345.02 and R.C. 1345.03, respectively. ... It was under the Finns’ orders that changes were made. Given the history of the dealings between the parties, we cannot say that there was a violation of the Ohio Sales Practices Act.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits a repair shop from failing to provide itemized bills for its services.

Dantzig v. Sloe · filed 1996-10-01(A)

However, it was established that appellee failed to provide itemized bills, in violation of the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02 does not treat a repairer’s billing or payment demands as unfair or deceptive when both parties were imprecise about the agreed repairs and neither was particularly at fault.

Welch v. Smith · filed 1998-07-24

While we do not dispute the fact that a boat repair is a consumer transaction, we disagree with the trial court that, under the facts of this case, Smith’s “billing practices” were an “unconscionable demand for compensation to which he was not entitled” or constituted an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02. At best, the record clearly establishes that the parties never had a meeting of the minds about what type of engine Welch wanted and that neither party was particularly at fault for this. Given the lack of precision by both sides in this case, we simply cannot say that Smith’s failure to bill Welch in a particular amount was a deceptive practice, or that his demands for payment were unconscionable.

A contractor’s unworkmanlike residential construction that damages a homeowner’s property can violate § 1345.02.

Erie Shore Builders v. Leimbach, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2001) · filed 2001-07-13

Based upon the testimony and exhibits presented at trial which depicted the tree that was removed, the shrubs which were damaged, and the water damage caused by a leak in the bathroom installed by appellant, we cannot say that the trial court erred in finding that appellant violated R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

Section 1345.02 does not make a repair estimate deceptive solely because its form fails to meet the motor vehicle repair rule when the customer received the quoted estimate and was not misled.

Scanlon v. Fox, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2001) · filed 2001-09-06

Although we agree the handwritten note on the bottom of the original estimate does not comply with the strict requirements of OAC 109:4-3-13 (A)(1), we find no deceptive trade practice in Tuffy's providing the estimate in this manner. ... There was no evidence that he was induced into a "belief that was not in accord with the facts."

Section 1345.02(A) can cover a supplier’s misleading responses about a delivery delay, and disputed evidence of those responses can preclude summary judgment.

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

The CSPA states 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 or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction." R.C. 1345.02 (A). ... Based upon this information, reasonable minds could determine that this was a false and deceptive act on the part of Best, as well as a way to stall and evade Best's legal obligations. Therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted for this possible CSPA violation.

A home inspection report does not violate § 1345.02 when its description is accurate in light of the inspection limits disclosed in the report.

Lee v. C.D.E. Home Inspection Co., Unpublished Decision (8-22-2002) · filed 2002-08-22

Rather, the question before the jury was whether the nature of the damage as described by witnesses, in conjunction with the stated limitations upon inspection found in the inspection report disclaimers, misled appellants in such a manner as to violate the CSPA. ... There was therefore substantial evidence before the jury from which the jury could conclude that the description of the crawl space condition, in conjunction with the express limitations found in the inspection report regarding the nature and extent of crawl space inspections, was not misleading, but represented an accurate assessment pursuant to Mr. Maibaum's visual inspection from the point of entry. We accordingly find that appellants were not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on this claim.

Section 1345.02(B)(7) prohibits falsely representing that a repair is necessary, even if the supplier does not know the representation is false.

Wiseman v. Kirkman, Unpublished Decision (10-4-2002) · filed 2002-10-04(B)(7)

It was within the trial court's discretion to find that Kirkman, an experienced plumber, should have known that the existing plumbing did not violate the law, and, in any event, a vendor's knowledge of the falsity of his representation that a repair is necessary is not a requirement for a violation of the Act. All that is required is that the vendor falsely represent that a repair is necessary.

Section 1345.02 does not make unsatisfactory workmanship a deceptive practice without evidence of a deceptive or misleading act.

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

While the work performed by Mason Masters, Inc. through appellee may not have been up to appellants' standards, there was nothing deceptive or misleading about it. ... Furthermore, appellants did not demonstrate that there was a specific act or practice that was deceptive, which violated R.C. 1345.02 or R.C. 1345.03 .

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions; a claimed failure to provide a repair estimate did not establish a violation when the trial court reasonably rejected the consumer’s testimony.

Weaver v. Armando's, Inc., Unpublished Decision (9-3-2003) · filed 2003-09-03(A)

R.C. 1345.02 (A) provides that no supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. ... Similarly, we find it reasonable for the trial court to discount Weaver's testimony that he did not receive the document which stated that he could receive a written estimate and which contained a written estimate. ... Because his case was dependent upon his credibility, it was not unreasonable to find against him based on these inconsistencies.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits a vehicle repair supplier from assessing storage fees without prior notice that the fees may be imposed.

Mannix v. Dcb Service, Inc., Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004) · filed 2004-11-24(A)

In our judgment, it is a violation of the OCSPA to assess storage fees without prior notification that such charges may be imposed.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, but failure to pay a subcontractor is not automatically a violation.

Paradise Homes v. Limbacher, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2005) · filed 2005-02-15

R.C. 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. ... We find that failure to pay a subcontractor is not a per se violation of the act.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) covers unqualified claims about the quality of repair work when the supplier knows its diagnostic test may have missed the problem.

Pep Boys-Manny v. Vaughn, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2006) · filed 2006-02-16(B)(2)

Thus, by making unqualified statements that it had found the oil leak, even though it knew it possibly had not, Pep Boys intentionally misrepresented that the work it did on Vaughn's car was of a particular standard or quality, a violation of R.C. 1345.02 (B)(2).

Section 1345.02 prohibits deceptive consumer transactions, including vehicle service performed without a prior written estimate or a work order authorizing service without one.

Alexander v. Transmission by Bruce, Inc., 89908 (5-1-2008) · filed 2008-05-01

Pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 , a supplier shall not commit an unfair or deceptive consumer transaction. ... Although not specified in the record, a review of OAC 109:4-3-13 shows that appellee violated section (A)(1), which makes it a deceptive consumer transaction for a motor vehicle to be serviced without a prior written estimate or work order authorizing the work to be performed without such estimate.

Section 1345.02 covers a contractor's failure to perform work in a workmanlike manner.

Millington v. Financing Solutions, Inc., 3-07-37 (6-30-2008) · filed 2008-06-30

Similarly, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant violated R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 for failing to perform work in a workmanlike manner. There was evidence that the roof leaked, and that the roof continued to leak even after the second roof was built.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a supplier’s voluntary efforts to help a former customer an unfair or deceptive practice merely because a promised repair is not completed after the supplier’s legal obligations have ended.

Eisert v. Kantner Constr. · filed 2010-10-04(A)

The fact that Kantner chose to return the Eiserts’ phone calls, aided them in determining the cause of the odor, and promised to “fix the problem” did not amount to unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts.

Section 1345.02 does not support a claim for refusal to correct substandard work when the evidence supports a finding that the work was not substandard.

Gilham v. Stasiulewicz · filed 2010-12-23(A)

As we have concluded that some competent, credible evidence appears in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that Appellee’s work was not substandard, her claim based on Celebrezze must fail.

Section 1345.02(A) covers a contractor’s below-code construction when it is accompanied by failure to disclose a latent defect, inadequate repairs, and unfulfilled assurances of repair.

Davis v. Hawley Gen. Contracting, Inc. · filed 2015-09-18(A)

Upon our review of the record below, we find that the trial court erred when it declined to conclude that appellees’ conduct in constructing the basement below minimum code requirements, failing to determine and to disclose to appellants that rebar was installed only to the point where the wall hinged, making inadequate attempts at repairing the horizontal crack, and assuring appellants that they would remedy the situation, but failing to do so, was sufficient to establish a CSPA violation.

Section 1345.02(A) permits a deceptive practice claim when a supplier promises to pay for damage caused during a consumer transaction, induces the consumer to pay for the service, and later refuses to pay for the damage.

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

A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether RH violated the deceptive acts or practices provision of the CSPA by representing to Frank, before Frank paid for RH’s services related to the move of the fountain, that RH would pay to repair the fountain that was damaged by RH’s employees during ... the move, and then later refusing to pay for the repair after learning it lacked insurance coverage for the repair.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a disputed scope of services deceptive when the supplier made no misleading statements about the agreed work.

Kent v. Leo's Ent., L.L.C. · filed 2021-03-25(A)

The record does not support Kent’s claim that appellees made misleading statements about the scope of the work. Kent confirmed she never told appellees the number of trees she wanted cut down and there was no written proposal specifying the number of trees.

Section 1345.02(A) treats a repair shop’s failure to give the required notice of a customer’s right to an estimate as a deceptive act that can defeat its possessory lien on the vehicle.

Marreez v. Jim Collins Auto Body, Inc. · filed 2021-11-17(A)

As applied here, Collins Auto committed a deceptive act when it failed to provide Mr. Marreez with the required OCSPA form during their initial contact informing him of the right to an estimate for any service or repair. As a result, Collins Auto cannot obtain a lien on the vehicle.

A supplier’s representation that repair work meets a particular standard or quality is deceptive if it does not, and unworkmanlike work may violate the section.

Nicholson v. Davis Auto Performance · filed 2024-01-22(B)(2)

R.C. 1345.02(B)(2) provides that it is deceptive for a supplier to represent that the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not. Thus, work performed by a supplier must be done in a workmanlike manner, and failure to do so may give rise to a violation of the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(B)(7) prohibits representing that a repair is needed when it is not; an unsuccessful repair does not establish a violation without evidence that the work was unnecessary.

Price v. Evans Automotive Repair, Inc · filed 2024-10-24(B)(7)

The trial court also correctly found that, the Prices’ argument notwithstanding, the representation by EAR “that paying $3,499 would result in a drivable, good car, when that was not the case,” was not a deceptive act under either Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-13-13(C)(8) or R.C. 1345.02(B)(7). This was so because, as the trial court found, there is no evidence in the record that shows the work ultimately performed by EAR was not needed, and the Prices have not specifically identified any such evidence on appeal.

Section 1345.02(A) applies to services and treats a supplier’s refusal to perform repairs under a labor warranty as an unfair or deceptive practice.

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

A plain reading of the statute supports the trial court’s conclusion that the roof replacement is a “consumer transaction,” and Appellant’s refusal to perform the repairs pursuant to the labor warranty in the contract constitutes an unfair or deceptive labor practice.

Pleading a violation of Section 1345.02 gives notice that Chapter 1345 regulations may be relevant to whether the section was violated.

Freitag v. Datsun · filed 1981-06-25

Here, plaintiff’s complaint put defendant on notice that plaintiff intended to rely on R.C. 1345.02, and a reading of that section will immediately place a person on notice that other portions of R.C. Chapter 1345 and regulations promulgated under that chapter are relevant to a determination of whether the provisions of R.C. 1345.02 have been violated.

Section 1345.02(C) does not automatically incorporate federal consumer lease disclosure rules into Ohio’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices.

Celebrezze v. Fred Godard Ford, Inc. · filed 1985-06-26(C)

Furthermore, the Section 1607(c), Title 15, U.S. Code provision that violations of the federal Act containing TILA requirements shall be deemed violations of the FTC Act “[fjor the purpose of the exercise of * * * [the commission’s] functions and powers” under the Act, without more, does not make a TILA rule or regulation automatically a “trade regulation rule.” While it is possible that this particular TILA provision may sometime come within the Ohio statutory limitations, the trial court did not err in refusing at this time to include the federal standards on consumer leasing disclosures in the state Act.

Section 1345.02's list of unfair or deceptive acts is not exhaustive, and administrative rules further describe prohibited practices.

Janos v. Murduck · filed 1996-02-28

R.C. 1345.02 prohibits unfair consumer sales practices and specifically lists ten unfair or deceptive acts. R.C. 1345.02(B)(1) through (10). This list is not exhaustive, however, and the Ohio Administrative Code does amplify R.C. 1345.02 by further describing prohibited unfair consumer sales practices.

Imperfect workmanship alone does not establish an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice under section 1345.02.

Gatrell v. Kilgore, Unpublished Decision (12-22-1999) · filed 1999-12-22

The Consumer Sales Practices Act states that no supplier shall commit an unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. R.C. 1345.02 and R.C. 1345.03 . While the finished septic system was imperfect, we agree with the trial court that the evidence failed to establish that the appellee's work rose to the level of unfair, deceptive or unconscionable.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in consumer transactions before, during, or after the transaction.

Friend v. Elsea, Inc., Unpublished Decision (9-26-2000) · filed 2000-09-26(A)

In consumer transactions, R.C. 1345.02 (A) prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices, whether they occur "before, during, or after the transaction." ... Thus, we find that the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 1345.02 does not make the mere failure to report a fictitious business name an unfair or deceptive act when no deceptive conduct is connected with the name.

Ganson v. Vaughn · filed 1999-11-19

The failure to report a fictitious name to the Secretary of State is not among the violations listed in R.C. 1345.02, 1345.03, and 1345.05, or in Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 109:4-3. ... Where the failure to report is not listed in either R.C. Chapter 1345 or Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 109:4-3 as an unfair or deceptive act, and where no other deceptive acts are alleged in connection with the use of a fictitious business name, the mere failure to register does not violate the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(C) directs courts to give great weight to FTC guidance and federal interpretations of the FTC Act when evaluating deceptive practices.

Allin v. Hartzell Propeller, Unpublished Decision (5-30-2003) · filed 2003-05-30(C)

Paragraph (C) of R.C. 1345.02 instructs courts to "give due considerations and great weight to federal trade commission orders, trade regulations rules and guides", and to federal court interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Section 1345.02(B)'s listed deceptive acts do not expressly cover a seller's failure to provide copies of signed documents.

Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co. · filed 2004-02-25(B)

We observe that the failure to provide copies of documents signed is not explicitly included in the list of ten deceptive acts in R.C. 1345.02(B), nor do any of these acts appear to apply.

Section 1345.02(C) requires courts construing its prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts to give due consideration and great weight to FTC rules and guides.

Reagans v. Mountainhigh Coach Works, Inc., Unpublished Decision (1-27-2006) · filed 2006-01-27(C)

In deciding that issue we are enjoined by R.C. 1345.02 (C), which states: "in construing division (A) of this section, the court shall give due consideration and great weight to federal trade commission orders, trade regulation rules and guides, and the federal courts' interpretation of subsection 45(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act."

Section 1345.02(B)'s list of deceptive practices is not exhaustive; Attorney General rules may define additional practices that violate the section.

Grieselding v. Krischak, L-06-1010 (6-1-2007) · filed 2007-06-01(B)

R.C. 1345.02 (B) lists certain "deceptive" acts or practices pursuant to OCSPA. This list, however, is not exhaustive and, pursuant to R.C. 1345.05 (B)(2), the Ohio Attorney General is empowered to adopt, amend, and repeal substantive rules within the Ohio Administrative Code that define, with reasonable specificity, acts or practices which violate R.C. 1345.02 .

Failure to comply with the Home Solicitation Sales Act is a deceptive act or practice under § 1345.02.

White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 89316 (1-17-2008) · filed 2008-01-17

The failure to comply with the HSSA constitutes a deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction in violation of the CSPA. R.C. 1345.21 to 1345.27 ; R.C. 1345.02 .

Section 1345.02(A) does not treat the mere failure to register a fictitious business name as an unfair or deceptive practice without other deceptive acts.

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

Where no other deceptive acts are alleged in connection with the use of a fictitious business name, the mere failure to register does not violate the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(C) requires courts to give federal trade regulation rules great weight, but a technical violation of those rules does not automatically constitute an unfair or deceptive practice.

Shumaker v. Hamilton Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 2009-09-28(C)

Shumaker reminds us that in R.C. 1345.02(C), the legislature indicated that Ohio courts “shall give due consideration and great weight” to federal trade regulation rules, such as the FTC rule, in construing R.C. 1345.02(A). However, we are not bound to find that a technical violation of FTC rules constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under the CSPA, particularly when such an interpretation would create unreasonable results.

Section 1345.02 treats failure to give the cancellation notice required by the Home Solicitation Act as a Consumer Sales Practices Act violation.

J. Bowers Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gilbert · filed 2014-08-20

“A failure to provide a cancellation notice in a transaction covered by [The Home Solicitation Act] constitutes a violation of the [Consumer Sales Practices Act] under R.C. 1345.02.” ... Because the Gilberts did not properly plead this statutory violation, the court did not err in failing to award damages.

Section 1345.02(A) remains applicable to cigarette descriptors when an FTC consent order does not specifically permit their use.

In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. · filed 2017-12-21(A)

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02(A) is inapplicable if "a violation was an act or practice required or specifically permitted by federal trade commission orders." ... The Court is concludes that, although the holding is dicta, the Supreme Court of Ohio would follow its conclusion from Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. and rule that the Consent Order does not permit the descriptor use here.

Section 1345.02(A) treats a supplier’s failure to perform acts required by consumer protection regulations as a deceptive practice; substantial compliance does not excuse the failure.

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

In connection with such a consumer transaction, the OCSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts, R.C. 1345.02(A), or unconscionable acts or practices, R.C. 1345.03(A). ... While appellees assert that they substantially complied with the regulations, substantial compliance is irrelevant when the supplier is required by a regulation to specifically perform certain actions to avoid committing an unfair and deceptive act. ... Each regulation discussed above states that a violation of the regulation is a deceptive act or practice.

Section 1345.02(G) makes a supplier’s failure to obtain or maintain a registration required for its trade an unfair or deceptive practice.

State ex rel. DeWine v. Wolfe · filed 2022-05-11(G)

After reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate’s legal conclusions that Mr. Wolfe and Neil Construction failed to register as a contractor in violation of R.C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02 cannot support deceptive sales claims based on unauthorized e-cigarettes bearing federally required origin labels when the claims depend solely on federal premarket authorization requirements and conflict with federal labeling requirements.

State ex rel. Yost v. Elevate Smoke, L.L.C. · filed 2025-12-19(A), (B)(1), (B)(4)

Specifically, we must decide whether the TCA explicitly or implicitly preempts plaintiff-appellant State of Ohio, ex rel. Attorney General Dave Yost’s (“State”) claims, which allege that the sale of unauthorized e-cigarettes bearing the Origin Label are deceptive and unconscionable sales practices in violation of Ohio’s consumer-protection laws. We hold that the TCA implicitly preempts the State’s claims because they exist solely by virtue of the TCA’s premarket-authorization requirements and conflict with the TCA’s labeling requirements.

Section 1345.02(A) allows a deceptive sales practice claim when a retailer allegedly sells illegal vapes without informing consumers that the products are illegal.

State ex rel. Yost v. Orrville Tobacco & Vape Shop, L.L.C. · filed 2026-03-23(A)

A consumer could reasonably view Orrville Tobacco’s actions as deceptive because the acts have the likelihood of inducing in the mind of a consumer a belief which is not in accord with the facts, and that belief is that the illegal unregulated adulterated products are legal, when they are not.

Section 1345.02(G) makes a supplier’s failure to obtain a registration required by local ordinance for its trade an unfair or deceptive practice; a consumer seeking damages must prove the violation caused the loss.

Kogan v. Weaver Const. and Roofing, L.L.C. · filed 2026-06-18(G)

Appellants are correct that appellees were required to prove that any violation of the CSPA was the proximate cause of damages. R.C. 1345.02(G) makes “the failure of a supplier to obtain or maintain any registration, license, bond, or insurance required by state law or local ordinance for the supplier to engage in the supplier’s trade or profession . . . an unfair or deceptive act or practice.”

Section 1345.02 does not make a supplier’s refusal to rescind a transaction an unfair or deceptive practice by itself.

Gadfield v. Ferris Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 1990-06-26

Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court pursuant to R.C. § 1345.09(B) should have declared that defendants' failure to rescind is itself an unfair and deceptive act or practice under R.C. §1345.02. Although novel, this argument must fail for lack of statutory under R.C. Chapter 1345.

A violation of § 1345.02(B) does not by itself make a consumer contract unenforceable.

Payton v. Auto Depot, Inc. · filed 1990-06-29(B)

However, a violation of R.C. 1345.02(B) does not render the contract unenforceable under R.C. 1345.09, the relief provision.

Claims for deceptive practices under section 1345.02 may be resolved through arbitration, including claims involving prepaid entertainment contracts.

Vincent v. Neyer · filed 2000-09-28

R.C. 1345.48(A) states that failure to comply with R.C. 1345.41 to 1345.50 constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02. ... Nothing in the above sections precludes arbitration clauses in consumer sales contracts, including prepaid entertainment contracts.

Section 1345.02 treats a supplier's retention of a mechanic's lien after Consumer Sales Practices Act violations as an unfair or deceptive practice.

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

The New Philadelphia Municipal Court has held that a supplier's retention of a common law possessory mechanic's lien after he has engaged in violations of the CSPA is a deceptive and unfair practice in violation of R.C. 1345.02 . ... Since we have already determined that the lower court's findings, that appellant violated other provisions of the CSPA, are supported by the record, the trial court's finding that appellant's retention of a mechanic's lien on appellee's vehicle violated the CSPA is also well-supported.

A claim alleging an unfair or deceptive act under § 1345.02(A) must be brought as a counterclaim rather than asserted as a defense.

Mitchell v. Ell · filed 2004-06-01(A)

In order to prove that Mitchell violated the Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Ells had to show that Mitchell committed an “unfair or deceptive” act under R.C. 1345.02(A) or an “unconscionable” act under R.C. 1345.03(A). ... It has been held that claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act are not defenses, but must be brought as counterclaims. ... It is clear that the Ells did not bring an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim as a counterclaim. Rather, they asserted a defense at the hearing that Mitchell had violated the Act.

Section 1345.02 does not support a claim based on mileage deductions in Lemon Law settlements when the full-refund remedy does not bind the settlement process and the consumer has settled.

Maitland v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2004-11-10

Because we have determined that the settlement and informal dispute-resolution processes are not bound by the remedies set forth in R.C. 1345.72(B) and that the parties’ settlements with the manufacturers preclude subsequent litigation, we also hold that the plaintiffs’ cause of action based on the Consumer Sales Practices Act fails to state a claim for relief and should be dismissed.

Section 1345.02 cannot support a claim based on receipt printing conduct once the federal card truncation requirements apply to that conduct.

Ferron v. Radioshack Corp. · filed 2008-03-31

Further, Section 1681c(g) preempts not only R.C. 1349.18, as a state law that specifically addresses the conduct at issue, but also sweeps within its broad preemptive scope ... the OCSPA, a law of general application, to the extent that the state consumer protection laws provide for a cause of action premised upon conduct within Section 1681c(g)’s boundaries.

Section 1345.02(A) does not cover breach of a settlement agreement that transfers no product to the consumer, because the agreement is not a consumer transaction.

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

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

Section 1345.02(A) permits a claim based on alleged misrepresentations in a consumer transaction despite the parol evidence rule.

Williams v. Spitzer Auto World Canton, 2007 Ca 00187 (5-27-2008) · filed 2008-05-27(A)

R.C. 1345.02 (A) states as follows: "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 ." (Emphasis added). ... Because the gravamen of appellee's case is based on the aforesaid section of the CSPA, we hold the parol evidence rule does not apply under these circumstances, and that a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were properly denied.

A consumer claiming an unfair or deceptive practice under § 1345.02(A) may not use extrinsic evidence to contradict a final written contract absent fraud, mistake, or other invalidating cause.

Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C. · filed 2009-07-28(A)

The parol evidence rule applies to actions brought pursuant to the CSPA, and absent proof of fraud, mistake, or other invalidating cause, a consumer may not present extrinsic evidence contradicting the parties’ final written contract to prove a violation of that act.

Claims under § 1345.02(B)(5) and (10) cannot rest on warranty impressions tied to oral representations that contradict a final written purchase contract.

Olah v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 2010-11-10(B)(5), (B)(10)

The Olahs nevertheless contend that certain representations were not contradictory to the final agreement and constituted deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(5) and (10); Section 455.3(b), Title 16, C.F.R.; and Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(3), (5), (22), and (15). ... Thus, any impression concerning the warranty is inextricably linked to their claim that the vehicle was represented as new. The parol-evidence rule prohibits the use of such evidence in contradiction to the terms of a final written contract.

Section 1345.02 does not make blank spaces in a signed consumer agreement a per se violation when there is no evidence the supplier filled them in after signing.

Helton v. U.S. Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. · filed 2016-03-24

We note that appellant does not contend there was evidence in the instant case that appellees filled in blank spaces on the agreement after he signed the document, and we find no error by the trial court in failing to find a per se violation of CSPA based on the facts presented.

Section 1345.02 permits a deceptive or unfair sales practice claim based on advertisements even when season pass terms contain disclaimers that defeat a contract claim.

Walker v. Cedar Fair. L.P. · filed 2023-07-17

I therefore found that Plaintiffs had stated a claim under O.R.C. § 1345.02. Id. at *8. ... Consequently, those disclaimers did not foreclose Plaintiffs’ OCSPA claims as a matter of law. ... I therefore deny Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss the OCSPA claims.

Section 1345.02(B)(10) prohibits a deceptive retreatment guarantee that promises protection while leaving the consumer only an ineffective retreatment remedy; its exclusion of liability for structural damage has no effect.

Roelle v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Unpublished Decision (11-7-2000) · filed 2000-11-07(B)(10)

We accordingly find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the Roelles on their claim that Orkin's Retreatment Guarantee constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the CSPA, and that the exclusion against liability for structural damages should be given no effect.

Section 1345.02(B)(5) requires a supplier’s representation; a sample board warning that color may vary does not promise that delivered bricks will match the sample.

Jones v. Davenport, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2001) · filed 2001-01-26(B)(5)

Because no misrepresentation was made by Snyder as to the specific color of the bricks Jones would receive, we find that R.C. 1345.02 (B)(5) was not violated.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) covers a supplier’s representation that a product meets the standard of a model shown to the buyer when the delivered product does not.

Estate of Cattano v. High Touch Homes, Unpublished Decision (5-24-2002) · filed 2002-05-24(B)(2)

We find that there was sufficient evidence in this case from which the jury could find that the home Cattano purchased did not meet the standards of the model that he was shown.

Section 1345.02 treats a supplier’s factual misrepresentations about a vehicle’s performance or quality as deceptive; mere puffing or opinion is not actionable.

Howard v. Norman's Auto Sales, Unpublished Decision (6-3-2003) · filed 2003-06-03(B)(1)-(2)

While statements of mere puffing or opinion would not be actionable under the Consumer Sales Practices Act, we construe the magistrate's decision as finding that plaintiff reasonably relied upon specific statements of fact about the character and quality of the vehicle, including how it would perform in the future. We conclude that the trier of fact, who heard evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the transaction, could have reasonably found that the supplier made factual assertions that went beyond just opinion.

A claim that a supplier misrepresented a limited home warranty under § 1345.02(B)(10) fails when the buyers cannot show they were denied its benefits.

Suttle v. Decesare, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2003) · filed 2003-06-05(B)(10)

Appellants generally argue that DeCesare committed unfair or deceptive practices in violation of R.C. 1345.02 in: (1) failing to honor the express limited BIA warranty contained in the purchase agreement or representing that the agreement contained a BIA limited warranty when it, allegedly, did not, see R.C. 1345.02 (B)(10); and, (2) avoiding his legal obligations toward the Suttles in not constructing the home in a workmanlike manner and not repairing the defects in the home, as mandated by the BIA limited warranty, see R.C. 1345.02 (A) and (B)(10). As previously addressed in the second assignment herein, the Suttles failed to demonstrate that they were not afforded the benefits of the BIA limited warranty.

Section 1345.02(B)(5) permits a supplier to make a good faith substitution of similar merchandise of equal or greater value.

Byers v. Coppel, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2003) · filed 2003-06-24(B)(5)

If the jury answered the interrogatory in the negative because it found that Coppel substituted materials but did not cause damage, then it implicitly found that the substitution was with materials of an equal or greater value, which is permissible pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 (B)(5).

Section 1345.02(A) can prohibit a supplier from concealing an alteration to a product even if the product is new.

Arales v. Furs by Weiss, Unpublished Decision (6-26-2003) · filed 2003-06-26(A)

Under R.C. 1345.02 (A), it does not matter whether the coat was new or used when it was purchased; it matters only whether the practice engaged in by the supplier was "unfair" or "deceptive." The jury apparently concluded that appellant's practice of altering the coat but not telling Arales about the alteration was "unfair" or "deceptive," sufficient to find a violation of R.C. 1345.02 (A).

Section 1345.02 does not make a lottery retailer’s misstatement of the game rules deceptive when players are presumed to know those rules and the retailer lacks authority to change them.

Struna v. Convenient Food Mart · filed 2005-04-21

Thus, we find that a lottery player, who is presumed to know the rules of the game, cannot be deceived by misrepresentations made by a person without authority to modify the rules.

Section 1345.02 treats a failure to honor an implied warranty of merchantability as a deceptive act.

Mason v. Mercedes-Benz, Llc., Unpublished Decision (8-18-2005) · filed 2005-08-18(B)(1), (B)(10)

Pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 (B)(1) (10), the failure to honor an implied warranty of merchantability is a deceptive act.

Section 1345.02(B)(1) treats a false representation of approval as deceptive, but obtaining a vehicle title in compliance with applicable law does not violate it.

Chesnut v. Progressive Casualty Insurance · filed 2006-04-27(B)(1)

R.C. 1345.02(B)(1) states that an act is deceptive if it represents that it has approval that it does not actually have. However, we have concluded that Progressive did not violate Louisiana titling laws, so this argument fails.

Section 1345.02(B)(10) prohibits presenting an illusory guarantee as meaningful warranty coverage.

State, Ex Rel. Celebrezze v. Ferraro · filed 1989-06-06(B)(10)

The documentation supplied to consumers by appellant is designed to create the appearance that services rendered by appellant are somehow under warranty. As we have discussed, such an appearance is illusory and deceptive. We hold that the practices of appellants are in violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(10).

Section 1345.02(B)(10) prohibits false representations about whether a consumer transaction includes a warranty.

Fletcher v. Don Foss of Cleveland, Inc. · filed 1993-08-02(B)(10)

Therefore, when the Fletchers came back within the warranty period as they were led to believe and were told that the transaction which had a warranty no longer involved a warranty, R.C. 1345.-02(B)(10) was violated.

A warranty card with blank model and serial numbers does not establish a false warranty representation under § 1345.02(B)(10) when there is no evidence that the warranty does not exist.

Smaldino v. Larsick · filed 1993-09-30(B)(10)

Appellee left a warranty card with appellant after completion of the installation. There is no evidence that a warranty does not exist. Appellant bases its assertion on the fact that appellee did not fill in the model number or serial number on the card. We find no false representation, hence no violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(10).

A supplier's failure to honor an express warranty can violate § 1345.02(B)(10), and consumer testimony that a warranted defect persists can raise a factual dispute about the violation.

Miner v. Jayco, Inc., Unpublished Decision (8-27-1999) · filed 1999-08-27(B)(10)

Appellant further contends, however, that Jayco violated R.C. 1345.02 (B)(10) by failing to replace the sagging slide-out floor. ... Because appellant gave Jayco several opportunities to fix the problem and because she and her husband testified that the problem has never been fixed, appellant has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Jayco violated the CSPA by failing to abide by its warranty.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits a supplier from making statements likely to mislead a consumer about the duration of a warranty.

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

This court finds that the plaintiff, by his own words, did induce in the mind of the defendant a belief that is not in accordance with the facts. In particular, plaintiffs words regarding express warranties on the installation of the roof, windows, and siding led defendant to believe that the warranty would be for as long as he owned his house. ... Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff violated R.C. 1345.02(A) of the CSPA and acted in an unfair and deceptive manner.

Section 1345.02(B)(10) addresses false representations about a warranty; testimony that does not contradict the written warranty does not establish such a representation.

Carpet One Mentor v. Bridge, 2006-L-005 (6-15-2007) · filed 2007-06-15(B)(10)

The Bridges argue they proved at trial that Carpet One, through Rosborough, "falsely represented that a warranty existed at the time [they] entered the consumer transaction in violation of [R.C.] 1345.02(B)(10)." ... Nothing in the warranty language suggests Carpet One warrants the actual materials themselves. Thus, we do not read Ms. Rosborough's testimony as a disclaimer of the express warranty language appearing on the purchase invoice.

Section 1345.02(B)(2) does not support a deceptive-practices claim based on an inspection report’s asserted standard when the inspector made no such representation.

Semirale v. Jamieson, 89578 (3-13-2008) · filed 2008-03-13(B)(2)

Plaintiff also asserts that U.S. Inspect committed a deceptive act by indicating that its inspection report was of a particular standard when it was not. See R.C. 1345.02 (B)(2). He claims that "U.S. Inspect and Mr. Gedeon indicated that the house was fit for purchase and that it did not contain the defects" later found by plaintiff. We find no such representation in either the contract or the inspection report. Rather, the inspection was expressly limited in scope. The contract stated that no furniture would be moved and no wallcoverings would be opened. It denied any representations regarding latent or concealed defects. It further denied that the inspection was exhaustive. There is no evidence to support this claim, so defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A disclosed duty to maintain a leased vehicle and document its maintenance is not an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice.

Roman v. Volkswagen of America, L-07-1106 (5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02

Appellant was not subjected to any unfair or deceptive practices. She was made aware of her duties under the lease and warranty.

A buyer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seller made the alleged misrepresentation about the goods.

Czyzewski v. Dave Arbogast buick/pontiac Gmc. Inc., 22187 (6-13-2008) · filed 2008-06-13(B)(1)

In conclusion, the trial judge determined that Appellants failed to meet their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellees made a misrepresentation regarding the towing capacity of the Motor Home in violation of R.C. § 1345.02 (B)(1). This factual determination is supported by the record.

A breach of contract or warranty alone does not establish an unfair or deceptive practice under section 1345.02.

Wasserman v. Home Corp., 90915 (10-23-2008) · filed 2008-10-23(A)

Indeed, a breach of contract is not necessarily rooted in a deceptive act pursuant to R.C. 1345.02 .

An “as is” warranty disclaimer does not bar a claim under § 1345.02(A) based on allegedly deceptive statements about a product’s condition.

Keel v. Toledo Harley-Davidson/Buell · filed 2009-09-30(A)

In the case at bar, appellant presented claims under R.C. 1345.02(A) and 1345.03(A). ... Appellant’s CSPA claims should have precluded summary judgment; therefore, the trial court erred when ... granting appellee’s motion in its entirety.

Section 1345.02(A) allows an unfair or deceptive practices claim when a manufacturer charges an unauthorized fee to honor an express warranty.

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

CSPA prohibits a supplier from committing “an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction” whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction. R.C. 1345.02(A). ... A manufacturer’s failure to honor an express warranty can constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under CSPA. ... We find that Nee has presented evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether State Industries breached the warranty and violated CSPA by charging him a fee for a replacement FVIR water heater that was not specified in the warranty.

Problems with a product after purchase alone do not establish an unfair or deceptive practice under § 1345.02(A).

Fikri v. Best Buy, Inc. · filed 2013-11-04(A)

However, merely because a customer experiences difficulties with a product after its purchase does not invariably mean that the CSPA was violated.

Section 1345.02 permits a deceptive-practice claim for an undisclosed vehicle defect despite an “as is” warranty disclaimer.

Hamilton v. Ball · filed 2014-03-19

While an “as is” clause may be effective in defending a breach of contract or warranty claim, it does not have a similar effect on CSPA ... claims, which are a creature of statutory law.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a dealer liable for failing to repair a vehicle under a manufacturer’s warranty when the manufacturer prevents the repair and the consumer requests no service outside the warranty.

Martin v. Kings Ford, Inc. · filed 2015-02-06(A)

Martin also argues that Kings’ repeated failure to repair the vehicle and failure to communicate to the Martins the transmission problem with the vehicle once the vehicle had been towed violated the CSPA. The actions on the part of Kings of which Martin complains are not attributable to Kings. Because of the ongoing personal-injury investigation, Ford prevented the vehicle from being repaired under the warranty until a resolution had been reached with regard to the personal-injury case. Moreover, the Martins never requested that Kings perform service or repair outside the warranty. Therefore, Kings is entitled to summary judgment on Martin’s CSPA claim, too.

Section 1345.02 prohibits a supplier from falsely representing that a vehicle carries a particular warranty when the representation deceives the consumer; proof of intent to deceive is unnecessary.

Greenwood v. Quality Motor Cars by Butch Miller · filed 2016-12-15(B)(10)

Thus, in addition to proving a breach of contract, we find that Appellee presented evidence to find that a R.C. 1345.02 violation occurred.

Section 1345.02(B)(10) prohibits false representations about warranty coverage; a clear, signed service order disclosing charges for weekend repairs did not violate it.

Eye v. Sal's Heating & Cooling, Inc. · filed 2020-12-17(B)(10)

R.C. 1345.02(B)(10) deems it an unfair or deceptive practice for a supplier to represent 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. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s assessment that Sal’s Heating & Cooling did not violate either Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-05(D)(1) or R.C. 1345.02(B)(10).

A claim under Section 1345.02(A) can survive adverse warranty and lemon law verdicts when the evidence supports unfair or deceptive conduct in the supplier’s handling of warranty repairs.

Fravel v. BMW of N. Am., L.L.C. · filed 2025-01-29(A)

Overall, this Court cannot agree with BMW that the CSPA claim, in all respects, in light of the various facts presented to the jury and given the lack of interrogatories, was derivative of the lemon law or warranty claims.

A breach of an express warranty can violate section 1345.02 when the warranty is untrue, misleading, or not honored.

Clayborne v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C. · filed 2025-01-31(A)

But, while a breach of a warranty can amount to a violation under R.C. 1345.02, not every breach of a warranty will be an unfair or deceptive practice. Thus, a breach of an express warranty would logically rise to the level of a CSPA violation if the warranty were untrue, misleading, or not honored.

TCPA violations during a telemarketing solicitation for dental services violate § 1345.02(A), and violations causing distinct harms can support separate CSPA damage awards.

Charvat v. Ryan · filed 2006-07-20(A)

Under this definition, appellees’ TCPA violations constitute violations of the CSPA because the violations arose out of a solicitation to an individual for the sale of dental services, which are services that are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. ... Where, however, multiple TCPA violations arise from dissimilar rules directed to preventing distinct harms, and where such violations indeed result in multiple harms, separate CSPA damage awards should be made for each TCPA violation.

Section 1345.02(A) supports an unfair or deceptive practice claim for a prerecorded solicitation that omits the calling business’s name when an earlier court determination deemed that omission a violation.

Charvat v. Telelytics, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2006) · filed 2006-08-31(A)

Because the courts in Charvat I and Charvat II determined that a violation of Section 64.1200(b)(1), Title 47, U.S. Code is an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" under R.C. 1345.02 (A), and because the TCPA does not preempt plaintiff's second OCSPA claim, the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's second OCSPA claim.

A claim under § 1345.02 that depends on a TCPA violation fails when the plaintiff cannot establish that violation.

Taylor v. Xrg, Inc., 06ap-839 (6-21-2007) · filed 2007-06-21

Plaintiff's claim under the OCSPA is derivative of his claim under the TCPA, as his OCSPA claim exists because of his TCPA claim and relies upon the same set of operative facts. Because plaintiff cannot establish a violation of the TCPA, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that XO committed an inherently unfair or deceptive practice in connection with a consumer transaction.

Section 1345.02 does not prohibit an unsolicited fax merely because it was sent; the fax must be shown to be unfair or deceptive.

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

Although we note that “solicitation” is included in the definition of a consumer transaction in R.C. 1345.01, there is nothing in R.C. 1345.02 or 1345.03 to support a finding that the sending to and receipt by an individual of an unsolicited fax, when it is not established that the fax is unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable, is a violation of the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) does not make delivery of a prerecorded message without prior consent a violation by itself.

Charvat v. NMP, LLC · filed 2011-08-30(A)

We agree that, under Culbreath, delivering a prerecorded message without prior express consent, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), is not, by itself, a violation of the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits sales calls to consumers who previously told the supplier or its telemarketing vendors not to call.

United States v. Dish Network LLC · filed 2017-06-05(A)

Pursuant to these holdings, Internal List Calls made by Dish to persons who told Dish and its Telemarketing Vendors that they did not want to receive such calls violated the OCSPA.

A TCPA violation did not establish a violation of § 1345.02(A) as a matter of law on this record; whether the calls were unfair or deceptive remained for the factfinder.

Ramsey v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC · filed 2020-12-15(A)

Ramsey does not explain why the facts here compel the conclusion that these TCPA violations constitute per se OCSPA violations. So genuine and material questions of fact hang over the OCSPA claim. The Court will deny both motions for summary judgment as they relate to that claim.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions, including false lawsuit threats, false claims to be attorneys, and contacting others about a consumer’s debt.

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

Based upon the uncontested allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants have committed at least three distinct acts which are “unfair or deceptive” under established Ohio law. Defendants falsely threatened to bring lawsuits against Plaintiff, falsely held themselves out as attorneys, and invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by contacting persons associated with her regarding the debt. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 57a, c, d).

Section 1345.02 covers sales practices likely to give consumers a false impression about the product itself, not alleged manipulation of competition in the marketplace.

Johnson v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2003-12-30

Under R.C. 1345.02, unfair or deceptive sales practices are those that are likely to induce in the consumer a false state of mind concerning the product itself.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions; an act is deceptive when it is likely to cause a consumer to believe something contrary to the facts.

In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-12-08(A)

The plaintiffs do not allege an unfair or deceptive act, defined as an act that “has the likelihood of inducing in the mind of the consumer a belief which is not in accord with the facts.”

Section 1345.02(A) does not require proof that the supplier intended to be unfair or deceptive, and subsection (B)'s examples do not limit its scope.

Wall v. Planet Ford, Inc. · filed 2005-03-18(A)

R.C. 1345.02(B) provides a list of representations made by the supplier that are considered to be deceptive, but it does not limit the scope of R.C. 1345.02(A). When claiming a violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), a consumer does not have to establish that the supplier intended to be unfair or deceptive.

A supplier commits a deceptive sales practice by denying a promised refund based on an undisclosed, unreasonable time limit.

Lewis v. Dr Sawmill Sales, Inc., Unpublished Decision (3-21-2006) · filed 2006-03-21(A)

It is clear that there is competent, credible evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding of a deceptive sales practice on the part of appellants, and consequently a CSPA violation.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits a supplier from committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice before, during, or after a consumer transaction.

Walker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 2006-07-14(A)

R.C. 1345.02(A) prohibits a supplier from committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice before, during, or after a consumer transaction. ... The court declines to adopt the strained construction of the relevant OCSPA provisions that Walker advances. For the reasons detailed in State Farm’s memoranda (filed May 17, 2006, and June 8, 2006), which the court adopts and incorporates by reference, the court concludes that Walker’s amended complaint fails to state a valid claim for violation of the OCSPA.

A claim under section 1345.02 cannot survive summary judgment without evidence raising a factual question of unfair or deceptive conduct.

Kastner v. Southside Lincoln-Mercury Sales, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007) · filed 2007-03-02

Appellant, however, failed to offer any evidence to create a question of fact as to whether Southside engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable act within the meaning or R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03 .

Section 1345.02(A) does not make a tennis association’s application of its disclosed player rating rules unfair or deceptive when it promised no right to play on a chosen team or level.

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

However, we do not agree with appellant that appellees violated R.C. 1345.02 , by engaging in an "unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02 (A). ... None of the rules and regulations promulgated by appellees provided that a league participant was guaranteed the right to play on a particular team or level of his choosing.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in consumer transactions; the court found no violation in the tennis associations’ conduct.

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

However, we do not agree with appellee that appellants violated R.C. 1345.02 , by engaging in an "unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction." R.C. 1345.02 (A).

Section 1345.02(A) does not treat a patient’s belief that hospital charges are unfair, without facts showing a deceptive act, as a violation.

Firelands Regional Med. Ctr. v. Jeavons, E-07-068 (9-30-2008) · filed 2008-09-30(A)

In the present case, upon review we conclude that appellant failed to offer any facts that appellee engaged in a deceptive act, knowingly or otherwise. The fact that appellant believed that the price charged for the medical services was unfair does not demonstrate an unfair or deceptive act under the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts by suppliers in consumer transactions; a plaintiff must prove the alleged violation.

Emswiler v. Bodey · filed 2012-11-30

Emswiler alleged that Bodey and Barr violated the following provisions of the Consumer Sales Practices Act: ... R.C. 1345.02. ... Having thoroughly reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Emswiler did not meet her burden of persuasion on her claims.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair practices as well as deceptive practices, so a court must consider an unfair-practices claim separately when deciding a directed-verdict motion.

Dennie v. Hurst Construction, 06ca009055 (12-8-2008) · filed 2008-12-08(A)

However, while "the case law generally focuses on `deceptive' acts, presumably because the fact patterns involve some sort of false or misleading representations[,] * * * R.C. 1345.02 (A) also expressly prohibits `unfair' acts or practices." Saraf v. Maronda Homes, Inc. of Ohio , 10th Dist. No. 02AP-461, 2002-Ohio-6741, at ¶ 58. ... Having failed to address the "unfair" and "unconscionable" claims of Appellants, the trial court did not determine whether "reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted" that Hurst was entitled to a directed verdict on those causes of action. Accordingly, Appellants' first assignment of error is sustained, and their claims involving the violation of the CSPA are reversed and remanded.

Section 1345.02(A) covers deceptive acts after a consumer transaction, but a later repair does not establish a new violation without deceptive conduct.

Varavvas v. Mullet Cabinets, Inc. · filed 2009-12-28(A)

We find no evidence in the present case to find as in Keiber that appellee engaged in a deceptive act after the date of the underlying transaction.

Section 1345.02(A) covers deceptive acts before, during, or after a consumer transaction.

Quetot v. M&M Homes, Inc. · filed 2013-02-25(A)

Rather, the Ohio general assembly explicitly recognized that a CSPA violation may occur before, during or after the underlying consumer transaction.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions; enforcing a valid forum-selection clause and Florida judgment under Florida law did not violate it.

Scott v. Indep. Savs. Plan Co. · filed 2014-04-25(A)

The Consumer Sales Practices Act prohibits, in connection with a consumer transaction, an “act or practice” that is “unfair or deceptive,” R.C. 1345.02(A), or “unconscionable,” R.C. 1345.03(A), “whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.” ... None of the above allegations in the complaint can be violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. We determined above that the Florida judgment is valid and that the forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable. Florida law, not Ohio law, governed ISPC’s action.

Section 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions and requires a material representation, deceptive act, or omission that affects the consumer’s purchase decision.

Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. · filed 2014-06-16

Plaintiff Parsons brings a claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”), which prohibits suppliers from committing “an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1345.02. That statute requires a showing of a material representation, deceptive act, or omission that affected a plaintiffs decision to purchase an item.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits deceptive practices in consumer transactions, but a claim fails when the evidence supports a finding that no deceptive practice occurred.

Nye v. White-Rhoades · filed 2015-09-14(A)

We need not address the trial court’s suggestion that the home improvements were outside the scope of the CSPA because we conclude that, even assuming the parties engaged in a “consumer transaction” under the CSPA, the trial court did not clearly lose its way and create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered when the trial court concluded that Dennis did not commit a deceptive practice in violation of the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 prohibits deceptive consumer sales practices that mislead consumers about the nature of the product they receive.

White v. Chevrolet · filed 2016-03-11

Considering the evidence presented in the trial court and construing it in the light most favorable to White, we find no evidence to support a conclusion that Smedley’s misled White about the nature of the product he received (the Impala) or that Smedley’s manipulated his understanding of the nature of their transaction.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits unfair or deceptive supplier practices; a supplier does not violate it by making true statements.

Robinson v. Vehicle Acceptance Corp. · filed 2017-07-20(A)

A supplier does not violate the CSPA if it makes true statements; the Act protects against “unfair” or “deceptive” acts or practices by a supplier. R.C. 1345.02(A).

Section 1345.02(B)'s list of unfair or deceptive practices is not exhaustive; selling a vehicle without a required dealer license can be an unfair or deceptive act.

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

Division (B) of R.C. 1345.02 identifies ten acts or practices considered to be unfair and deceptive. The lack of a license is not included, however, the list in division (B) is not exhaustive.

Section 1345.02 permits a deceptive-practices claim when a student could reasonably understand program materials to mean that graduation qualifies her for licensing exams without additional requirements.

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

Her argument on appeal, however, relates solely to Section 1345.02, which governs unfair or deceptive practices. We will limit our review accordingly. ... Presuming all of the factual allegations in the complaint are true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Ms. Krueck, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for Ms. ... Krueck to interpret YSU’s materials as meaning that completion of its program would allow her to sit for the licensing exams without further coursework or an additional internship.

Section 1345.02 does not make a motel’s later disclosure of guest registration information a deceptive or unconscionable sales practice when the guests were unaware of its privacy policy and were not deceived during the sale.

Jones v. Motel 6 Operating L.P. · filed 2020-07-13

When Ms. Barber gave Det. Brotherton the information he requested, Motel 6 did not, as a result of that action, violate Ohio’s CSPA.

Section 1345.02 does not impose strict liability for deceptive practices; liability requires conduct that is false, material to a purchasing decision, and likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Barlow v. Gap, Inc. · filed 2020-09-10(A)

Therefore, regardless of whether The Gap’s signs are considered “offers” under the CSPA and whether the signs failed to disclose restrictions pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1), The Gap would not be liable under the CSPA unless Barlow proved that the signs were false, material to consumers’ purchasing decisions, and likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Section 1345.02(A) requires allegedly deceptive conduct to be material to the consumer transaction.

Lester v. FCA US, L.L.C. · filed 2022-05-27(A)

Therefore, in the absence of a defect, notice to Lester regarding a vibration analyzer was immaterial, and therefore, not “deceptive” under the CSPA, as a matter of law.