Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1345 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.11 (2026)

Bona fide errors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 11, 1978
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 681 - 112th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) In any case arising under Chapter 1345. of the Revised Code, if a supplier shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error, no civil penalties shall be imposed against the supplier under division (D) of section 1345.07 of the Revised Code, no party shall be awarded attorney's fees, and monetary recovery shall not exceed the amount of actual damages resulting from the violation.

(B) If a supplier shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation was an act or practice required or specifically permitted by federal trade commission orders, trade regulation rules and guides, or the federal courts' interpretations of subsection 45(a)(1) of the "Federal Trade Commission Act," 38 Stat. 717 (1914), 15 U.S.C.A. 41, as amended, and that the act or practice was not otherwise declared to be unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable by a rule adopted pursuant to division (B)(2) of section 1345.05 of the Revised Code before the consumer transaction on which the action is based, and:

(1) If the case arises under section 1345.07 of the Revised Code, the attorney general is limited to injunctive relief as the only remedy against the supplier for that violation; or

(2) If the case arises under section 1345.09 of the Revised Code, the supplier is not subject to any liability or penalty for the violation.

(C) A receiver may be appointed by the court in an action under section 1345.07 of the Revised Code, if it is shown that the assets of the supplier are in danger of being lost, removed, injured, or dissipated. A receiver may, under the direction of the court, do all of the following:

(1) Sue for, collect, receive, and take into his possession all the goods, chattels, rights, credits, moneys, effects, lands, tenements, books, records, documents, papers, choses in action, bills, notes, and other property and assets of every kind and description acquired by any act or practice prohibited by this chapter, including property with which such property has been commingled if it cannot be identified in kind because of commingling;

(2) Sell, convey, and assign all property taken into his possession, and hold and dispose of the proceeds;

(3) Perform any other acts respecting the property that the court authorizes.

Any person who has suffered damages as a result of the use of any act or practice prohibited by this chapter and who submits proof to the satisfaction of the court that he has in fact been damaged, may participate with general creditors in the distribution of the assets to the extent he has sustained out-of-pocket losses.

(D) If a court determines after a hearing in any action brought pursuant to section 1345.07 of the Revised Code that a supplier in the course of performing activity under any license or permit issued by the state or a political subdivision or agency of the state, engaged in a practice that violates this chapter, the attorney general may, within sixty days after the time for appealing has expired, send a certified copy of the court's final judgment and supporting opinion to the issuing authority. Upon receipt of the court's judgment and opinion, the issuing authority shall promptly investigate to determine whether to institute proceedings to revoke or suspend the supplier's license or permit. The court's judgment, findings of fact, and conclusions of law shall be binding upon the issuing authority when it conducts its investigation. The issuing authority shall report its decision or action to the attorney general within twenty days of the conclusion of the issuing authority's investigation. If the issuing authority institutes proceedings to revoke or suspend the supplier's license or permit, it shall report its decision to the attorney general within twenty days of the conclusion of the issuing authority's proceedings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 9× “It was error for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law that defendant acted in good faith as defined in Ohio Revised Code § 1345.11. “4. The trial court’s nineth [sic ] finding of fact that defendant paid GMAC from defendant’s own funds the $984.”
Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency, 463 F. Supp. 2d 783 (S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 5× “” See Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.11(A). 47 . The Plaintiffs have not alleged that their fraud claim is premised on Dickerson's alleged telephonic statement to Mr.”
Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 3× “Ohio’s consumer-protection laws defer to FTC pronouncements, R.C. 1345.11(B) and 1345.05(B)(2), and such deference is particularly appropriate here, given the expertise that the FTC has developed in the past 70 years of regulating the tobacco industry, see Flanagan v.”
ABV Corp. v. Cantor, 2023 Ohio 3363 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “The jury’s determination that Appellee’s violation of the CSPA resulted from a “bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error” pursuant to R.C. 1345.11(A) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 467 F. Supp. 2d 769 (S.D. Ohio 2004). · cites it 3× “See R.C. 1345.11(A). The Court finds that defendant’s “holder in due course” statement is subject to liability under R.”
Delawder v. Platinum Fin. Servs. Corp., 443 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 2× “” See Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.11(A). While this provision may ultimately prove relevant, Delawder has stated a claim under Section 1345.”
In re Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D.N.M. 2017). · cites it 2× “" Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.11 . In Marrone v.”
United States v. Dish Network LLC, 256 F. Supp. 3d 810 (C.D. Ill. 2017). “Dish claims that it is entitled to an affirmative defense to civil penalties under Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.11. Section 1345.11 states that “no civil penalties shall be imposed” if “a supplier shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation resulted from a bona fide error…”
Shumaker v. Hamilton Chevrolet, Inc., 920 N.E.2d 1023 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “In his assignments of error, Hamilton challenges the trial court’s findings that (1) Hamilton violated the CSPA, (2) Hamilton knowingly committed the acts or practices that violated the CSPA, and (3) the bona fide error defense in R.C. 1345.11(A) did not apply. Because all of…”
Andrews v. Scott Pontiac Cadillac GMC, Inc., 594 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “01(E), to justify an award of attorney fees; and (3) R.C. 1345.11(A) prohibits an award or attorney fees or rescission of the transaction where a violation resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error.”
Ferron v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 647 (S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 2× “The bona fide error defense is set forth in Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.11(A), which provides: In any case arising under Chapter 1345, of the Revised Code, if a supplier shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the…”
McNichols v. Gouge Quality Roofing, L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 3294 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Further if there were any deficiencies in the estimates provided to Plaintiffs by Defendant, or in the contract or any other documentation involved in this transaction, the Court finds that such were bona fide errors as set forth in R.C. 1345.11” Appellee asserts that the trial…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.11(A) — 10 cases
Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency, 463 F. Supp. 2d 783 (S.D. Ohio 2006). “” See Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.11(A). 47 . The Plaintiffs have not alleged that their fraud claim is premised on Dickerson's alleged telephonic statement to Mr.”
Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “It was error for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law that defendant acted in good faith as defined in Ohio Revised Code § 1345.11. “4. The trial court’s nineth [sic ] finding of fact that defendant paid GMAC from defendant’s own funds the $984.”
ABV Corp. v. Cantor, 2023 Ohio 3363 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “The jury’s determination that Appellee’s violation of the CSPA resulted from a “bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error” pursuant to R.C. 1345.11(A) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 467 F. Supp. 2d 769 (S.D. Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 1345.11(A). The Court finds that defendant’s “holder in due course” statement is subject to liability under R.”
Delawder v. Platinum Fin. Servs. Corp., 443 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Ohio 2005). “” See Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.11(A). While this provision may ultimately prove relevant, Delawder has stated a claim under Section 1345.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.11(B) — 1 case
Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006). “Ohio’s consumer-protection laws defer to FTC pronouncements, R.C. 1345.11(B) and 1345.05(B)(2), and such deference is particularly appropriate here, given the expertise that the FTC has developed in the past 70 years of regulating the tobacco industry, see Flanagan v.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.11(B)(2) — 1 case
Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006). “Ohio’s consumer-protection laws defer to FTC pronouncements, R.C. 1345.11(B) and 1345.05(B)(2), and such deference is particularly appropriate here, given the expertise that the FTC has developed in the past 70 years of regulating the tobacco industry, see Flanagan v.”
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.