Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1334.13 (2026)

Certain franchising transactions exempted

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

September 28, 2012

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 196 - 129th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

Except for division (H) of section 1334.03 and section 1334.04 of the Revised Code, sections 1334.01 to 1334.15 of the Revised Code do not apply to:

(A) Any transaction that complies in all material respects with the trade regulation rule of the federal trade commission, "disclosure requirements and prohibitions concerning franchising," 16 C.F.R. 436.1 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, that is in effect on the date of the transaction;

(B) Any transaction that complies in all material respects with the trade regulation rule of the federal trade commission, "disclosure requirements and prohibitions concerning business opportunities," 16 C.F.R. 437.1 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, that is in effect on the date of the transaction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2019 · leading case: Yo-Can, Inc. v. Yogurt Exch., Inc., 778 N.E.2d 80 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yo-Can, Inc. v. Yogurt Exch., Inc., 778 N.E.2d 80 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “This affidavit states that because the company planned to operate in multiple states, it exercised its right under R.C. 1334.13 and complied with Section 436.”

Am. Nursing Care of Toledo, Inc. v. Leisure, 609 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 2× “In addition, because a complete disclosure statement was given to Toledo in the Spring of 1983 in connection with the attempt to execute a new contract and it thereafter elected to continue under the agreement, the exemption provided for in O.R.C. § 1334.13 also applies. That…”

Burger Dynasty, Inc. v. Bar 145 Franchising, L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 4006 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 16× “R.C. 1334.13. The FTC rule requires a franchisor to disclose twenty-three items in the FDD it provides to the prospective franchisee.”

Saydell v. Geppetto's Pizza & Ribs Franchise Sys., Inc., 652 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “R.C. 1334.13, however, exempts certain transactions from the Ohio Business Opportunity Plans statutes and states in relevant part as follows: “[S]ections 1334.”

AKC, Inc. v. ServiceMaster Residential Com. Servs., Ltd., 2014 Ohio 2627 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “12 and R.C. 1334.13. Because the court did not address the choice of law provision, which must necessarily be decided before venue, we reverse and remand for the court to consider the choice of law provision in the first instance.”

Zeller v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 2019 Ohio 3297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “12 and R.C. 1334.13 must also be thoroughly explored.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 1334.13(A) — 1 case

Yo-Can, Inc. v. Yogurt Exch., Inc., 778 N.E.2d 80 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “This affidavit states that because the company planned to operate in multiple states, it exercised its right under R.C. 1334.13 and complied with Section 436.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.