Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02

Section 1345.02 prohibits deceptive practices in consumer transactions; a claimed misrepresentation must be false and material to the transaction.

Geletka v. Radcliff · filed 2022-07-21(A)

Radcliff has not demonstrated that Geletka’s claims were deceptive, false, or material to the consumer transaction. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing Radcliff’s counterclaim regarding a violation of the CSPA.

A lender’s refusal to escrow funds for incomplete or defective work on a newly purchased home may be an unfair consumer sales practice.

Amos v. NVR INC. · filed 2022-03-31(A)

A reasonable jury could find that it was unfair for NVR Mortgage to refuse to escrow a portion of the funds that reflected the work that remained to be completed or repaired in the house.

Section 1345.02 does not make negligent work or a breach of contract an unfair or deceptive practice without evidence of deception.

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

Appellants’ argument that the trial court’s finding that conduct determined to be negligent or in breach of contract does not necessarily constitute unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable practices is contrary to Ohio law is without merit. The evidence presented at the bench trial does not support a finding that Appellee’s breach of contract also warrants a finding that the breach constituted a violation of the OCSPA.

Section 1345.02 assesses whether a supplier’s conduct made a consumer transaction unfair or deceptive, including whether the supplier offered to remedy a mistake.

Durnell's RV Sales, Inc. v. Beckler · filed 2023-10-02(A)

Under the basic test of fairness applied to claims brought under R.C. 1345.02, the model-year discrepancy did not, in these circumstances, render this transaction deceptive or unfair.

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment under § 1345.02 must identify the alleged unfair or deceptive practice and evidence supporting the claim.

Rogers v. Restore Contracting, Inc. · filed 2024-03-05

Plaintiffs have made no effort to identify what practices or representations by Restore were unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable under the statute. Further, Plaintiffs have not identified or offered evidence in support of any defect in any of the roofing materials or any misrepresentations as to the roofing materials’ performance characteristics, benefits, or quality.

Section 1345.02(A) does not support an unfair or deceptive practice claim based on a restaurant’s delay in seating customers and choice of table without facts showing deception or unfairness.

Grace v. Perkins Restaurant · filed 2025-01-24(A)

Even believing as true each of the factual allegations set forth in the complaint, Grace can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. Nothing in the complaint suggests that Perkins or the waitress acted in a deceptive manner. Nor do the facts support a claim that Perkins acted in an unfair manner.

Section 1345.02 requires evidence of unfair or deceptive conduct; a breach of contract alone does not establish a violation.

Caldwell v. Custom Craft Builders, Inc. · filed 2025-03-13

Accordingly, the trial court erred by finding in favor of Caldwell on her claim that Acorn violated the CSPA because there is insufficient evidence in the record to show that Acorn acted deceptively or unfairly.

A claim that conduct is deceptive under Section 1345.02 requires evidence that the conduct was material.

Wuerth v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C. · filed 2025-10-21(A)

However, we also agree with NEP that appellants have not presented evidence to show the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the materiality element in order to sustain a claim that NEP’s allegedly deceptive acts violated R.C. 1345.02.

Section 1345.02(B) lists examples of deceptive acts without limiting the broader prohibition in subsection (A).

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

R.C. 1345.02(B) includes a short list of deceptive acts but does not limit the scope of R.C. 1345.02(A).

Section 1345.02(A) does not treat the pursuit of a colorable contract claim as consumer deception, even if the claim ultimately fails.

Otterbeing Maineville, L.L.C. v. Carman · filed 2025-03-24(A)

But even if we hadn't, pursuing a colorable contract claim—even one that ultimately fails—does not amount to consumer deception under the CSPA.

Section 1345.02 permits a supplier to be held liable for its agent’s deceptive practices, including failure to provide a deposit receipt or deliver goods after taking payment.

Caldwell v. Custom Craft Builders, Inc. · filed 2026-01-15

The CSPA, which is codified in R.C. Ch. 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.” ... Here, the record contains sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Allen was an employee or agent of Acorn in connection with the Caldwell job. ... Based on the evidence presented at trial, we find sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Acorn violated the CSPA.

Section 1345.02(A) prohibits sales practices likely to mislead a reasonable consumer about a material purchasing fact; general inspection statements and a salesperson’s lack of awareness of defects were not deceptive in light of the written warnings accompanying this sale.

Gomm v. Kings Motors Group, L.L.C. · filed 2026-05-29(A)

When considering the alleged deceptive statements by Qasem, as well as the multiple advisories contained in the contract documents, a reasonable consumer would not have been misled into purchasing a defective vehicle based on Qasem’s alleged misrepresentations.