Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1345
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.77 (2026)

Establishment and qualification of informal dispute resolution mechanism

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 22, 1987
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 232 - 117th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) The attorney general shall adopt rules for the establishment and qualification of an informal dispute resolution mechanism to provide for the resolution of warranty disputes between the consumer and the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer. The mechanism shall be under the supervision of the division of consumer protection of the office of the attorney general and shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements for an informal dispute resolution mechanism as provided by the "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act," 88 Stat. 2183, 15 U.S.C.A. 2301, and regulations adopted thereunder.

(B) If a qualified informal dispute resolution mechanism exists and the consumer receives timely notification, in writing, of the availability of the mechanism with a description of its operation and effect, the cause of action under section 1345.75 of the Revised Code may not be asserted by the consumer until after the consumer has initially resorted to the informal dispute resolution mechanism. If such a mechanism does not exist, if the consumer is dissatisfied with the decision produced by the mechanism, or if the manufacturer, its agents, or its authorized dealer fails to promptly fulfill the terms determined by the mechanism, the consumer may assert a cause of action under section 1345.75 of the Revised Code.

(C) Any violation of a rule adopted pursuant to division (A) of this section is an unfair and deceptive act or practice as defined by section 1345.02 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2004–2018 · leading case: Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 6× “R.C. 1345.77. {¶ 15} R.C. 1345.77(A) directs the Attorney General to adopt rules to establish and qualify an “informal dispute resolution mechanism” to resolve warranty disputes that may arise between the consumer and manufacturer.”
Lucas v. Ford Motor Co., 2018 Ohio 3765 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “1 However, in light of the parties' apparent agreement, we will proceed under the notion that the arbitration that took place was part of the dispute-resolution process provided for in the statute. {¶ 18} The Ohio Lemon Law and the associated dispute-resolution process are…”
Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 852 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “Third, Harris contended that Ford presently lacks á qualified DSB and thus dismissal- of this action for the purpose of first complying with R.C. 1345.77 would be a vain act. Finally, Harris asserted that Ford had failed to comply with the condition precedents to mandatory…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.77(A): 2 cases
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). “R.C. 1345.77. {¶ 15} R.C. 1345.77(A) directs the Attorney General to adopt rules to establish and qualify an “informal dispute resolution mechanism” to resolve warranty disputes that may arise between the consumer and manufacturer.”
Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 852 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “Third, Harris contended that Ford presently lacks á qualified DSB and thus dismissal- of this action for the purpose of first complying with R.C. 1345.77 would be a vain act. Finally, Harris asserted that Ford had failed to comply with the condition precedents to mandatory…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.77(B): 2 cases
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). “R.C. 1345.77. {¶ 15} R.C. 1345.77(A) directs the Attorney General to adopt rules to establish and qualify an “informal dispute resolution mechanism” to resolve warranty disputes that may arise between the consumer and manufacturer.”
Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 852 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “Third, Harris contended that Ford presently lacks á qualified DSB and thus dismissal- of this action for the purpose of first complying with R.C. 1345.77 would be a vain act. Finally, Harris asserted that Ford had failed to comply with the condition precedents to mandatory…”
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.