Sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code do not apply to:
(A) An act or practice required or specifically permitted by or under federal law, or by or under other sections of the Revised Code, except as provided in division (B) of section 1345.11 of the Revised Code;
(B) A publisher, broadcaster, printer, or other person engaged in the dissemination of information or the reproduction of printed or pictorial matter insofar as the information or matter has been disseminated or reproduced on behalf of others without knowledge that it violated sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code;
(C) Claims for personal injury or death.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Whitaker v. M.T. Auto., Inc., 855 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio 2006).
Whitaker v. M.T. Auto., Inc., 855 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 9ד{¶ 25} R.C. 1345.12 lists exceptions to the application of certain parts of the CSPA.”
In re Anheuser-Busch Beer Labeling Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 644 F. App'x 515 (6th Cir. 2016). “And they agree that five of those eight states have common-law or statutory safe-harbor doctrines that offer defendants some insulation from consumer-protection law for conduct that is authorized by state or federal law.”
Pomianowski v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 435 (S.D. Ohio 1980). · cites it 16ד09) are made expressly inapplicable to claims for personal injury by virtue of O.R.C. § 1345.12(C). Because Plaintiff thereby cannot obtain statutory relief for alleged injury to her eye, Defendant concludes that the Second Cause of Action should be dismissed pursuant to F.”
Evans v. Midland Funding LLC, 574 F. Supp. 2d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 3ד” O.R.C. § 1345.12(A). Defendants assert that filing suit was authorized by Ohio law and that process of serving summons of suit is required by constitutional due process.”
Davis v. Byers Volvo, 2012 Ohio 882 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דMoreover, we observe that appellee has not argued that the R.C. 1345.12(B) exclusion renders the CSPA inapplicable to his statements.”
Kelley v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 738 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2דSpecifically, they argue that federal law does not require the itemization of acquisition charges and that, therefore, any failure to itemize is exempt from regulation pursuant to R.C. 1345.12, which states that the CSPA does not apply to “[a]n act or practice required or…”
Tibbe v. Ranbaxy, Inc., 2017 Ohio 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “See R.C. 1345.12(C). {¶39} Because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Ranbaxy is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Ranbaxy on the basis that the Tibbes’ claims that Ranbaxy had failed to adequately…”
Oak Hill Inv. Co. v. Jablonski, 605 N.E.2d 998 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “Code, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.12. The court, however, then found that Jablonski had set forth a claim for libel and found Oak Hill guilty of common-law libel.”
State ex rel. Yost v. Orrville Tobacco & Vape Shop, L.L.C., 2026 Ohio 983 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 6דIt held that the CSPA’s “safe harbor” provision in R.C. 1345.12(A) applies and “remove[s] the controversy concerning the labeling from the applicability of the []CSPA.”
John Doe v. Varsity Spirit, LLC (N.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 2ד02(A) The plain language of O.R.C. § 1345.12(C) holds that it does not apply to claims for personal injury.”
Tasha T. Taylor v. Home Depot Co. at Store #3804, et al. (N.D. Ohio 2026). · cites it 2ד3d at 763 (citing Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.12(C)). “Where, as here, the actionable conduct alleged primarily involves a physical injury allegedly due to a product, the Ohio Product Liability Act preempts claims under the Consumer Sales Practices Act.”
In re Anheuser-Busch Beer Labeling Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 644 F. App'x 515 (6th Cir. 2016). “And they agree that five of those eight states have common-law or statutory safe-harbor doctrines that offer defendants some insulation from consumer-protection law for conduct that is authorized by state or federal law.”
Evans v. Midland Funding LLC, 574 F. Supp. 2d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “” O.R.C. § 1345.12(A). Defendants assert that filing suit was authorized by Ohio law and that process of serving summons of suit is required by constitutional due process.”
State ex rel. Yost v. Orrville Tobacco & Vape Shop, L.L.C., 2026 Ohio 983 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “It held that the CSPA’s “safe harbor” provision in R.C. 1345.12(A) applies and “remove[s] the controversy concerning the labeling from the applicability of the []CSPA.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.12(B) — 1 case
Davis v. Byers Volvo, 2012 Ohio 882 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Moreover, we observe that appellee has not argued that the R.C. 1345.12(B) exclusion renders the CSPA inapplicable to his statements.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.12(C) — 6 cases
Whitaker v. M.T. Auto., Inc., 855 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 25} R.C. 1345.12 lists exceptions to the application of certain parts of the CSPA.”
Pomianowski v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 435 (S.D. Ohio 1980). “09) are made expressly inapplicable to claims for personal injury by virtue of O.R.C. § 1345.12(C). Because Plaintiff thereby cannot obtain statutory relief for alleged injury to her eye, Defendant concludes that the Second Cause of Action should be dismissed pursuant to F.”
Tibbe v. Ranbaxy, Inc., 2017 Ohio 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “See R.C. 1345.12(C). {¶39} Because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Ranbaxy is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Ranbaxy on the basis that the Tibbes’ claims that Ranbaxy had failed to adequately…”
John Doe v. Varsity Spirit, LLC (N.D. Ohio 2024). “02(A) The plain language of O.R.C. § 1345.12(C) holds that it does not apply to claims for personal injury.”
Tasha T. Taylor v. Home Depot Co. at Store #3804, et al. (N.D. Ohio 2026). “3d at 763 (citing Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.12(C)). “Where, as here, the actionable conduct alleged primarily involves a physical injury allegedly due to a product, the Ohio Product Liability Act preempts claims under the Consumer Sales Practices Act.”
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.