Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2026)

Exemptions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act shall apply to: 1. Publishers, broadcasters, printers or other persons insofar as an unlawful practice as defined in Section 753 of this title

involves information that has been disseminated or reproduced on behalf of others without knowledge that it is an unlawful practice; 2. Actions or transactions regulated under laws administered by the Corporation Commission or any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States, or to acts done by retailers or other persons acting in good faith on the basis of information or matter supplied by others and without knowledge of the deceptive character of such information or matter; and 3. The collection of monies denominated as gross receipts tax on mixed beverages, sales tax or use tax, or asserted injuries or damages that are monies that have been collected as, or denominated as, gross receipts tax on mixed beverages, sales tax or use tax, and which have been remitted to the Oklahoma Tax Commission or other governmental taxing authority. Added by Laws 1972, c. 227, § 4, operative Sept. 1, 1972. Amended by Laws 2017, c. 382, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2017.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Rogers v. QuikTrip Corp., 2010 OK 3 (Okla. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rogers v. QuikTrip Corp., 2010 OK 3 (Okla. 2010). “The defendants also urged the terms of 15 O.S. § 754 exempt them from liability under the Consumer Protection Act.”

Thomas v. Metro. Life Ins., 540 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (W.D. Okla. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 15 O.S.2001 § 754(2). MetLife argues that under this exclusion from coverage, plaintiff Thomas’s OCPA claims (and also plaintiffs Is-ing’s and Stout’s OCPA claims, were those claims not already disposed of by this order) should be dismissed because the subjects of those claims…”

Horton v. Bank of Am., N.A., 189 F. Supp. 3d 1286 (N.D. Okla. 2016). “Indeed, aside from two narrow exceptions not applicable here, see 15 O.S. § 754, 1 the only coverage limitation set forth in the statute is that the challenged “unlawful practice” occur “in the course of the person’s business.”

In Re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2). To determine whether the exemption applies, the Court must compare the purposes of the OCPA and the allegedly conflicting regulatory scheme.”

Childs v. Unified Life Ins. Co., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (N.D. Okla. 2011). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2) (“Section 754(2)”).”

Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 212 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Okla. 2016). “Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act Dollar General argues Sisemore’s OCPA claim must be dismissed because the conduct alleged in the Complaint is protected by a statutory safe harbor, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2). The safe harbor states the OCPA does not apply to, inter alia,…”

Dinwiddie v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc., 111 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (W.D. Okla. 2015). “” 15 O.S. § 754(2). Those courts that have addressed this issue have found the statutory exemption to be applicable when the alleged conduct about which the plaintiff has complained is regulated by a government agency.”

Banuelos v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc. (E.D. Okla. 2020). · cites it 3× “71 at 28 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2)). Section 754(2) provides: Nothing in the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act shall apply to: Actions or transactions regulated under laws administered by the Corporation Commission or any other regulatory body or officer acting under…”

Fields v. Hench's Country Liv'n Homes of Calera (E.D. Okla. 2025). · cites it 2× “Jessup contends it is exempt from plaintiffs' OCPA claim pursuant to 15 O.S. § 754(2). [Dkt. 156, ¶ 23]. 1. Purported Unlawful Practices The threshold question is which provisions of § 753 plaintiffs' allegations implicate.”

Gilbert Med. Bldg. LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. (W.D. Okla. 2020). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2) (“[a]ctions or transactions regulated under laws administered by the Corporation Commission or any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States” are exempted from the OCPA).”

Braver v. Clear Sky Fin. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2024). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754 (2). Relying on this exemption, a court in the Norther District of Oklahoma dismissed an OCPA claim premised on the use of an autodialing system because the FCC regulates this conduct and a consumer has a private right of action via the TCPA to…”

Fields (E.D. Okla. 2026). “[a]ctions or transactions regulated under laws administered by the Corporation Commission or any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state .”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 754(2) — 4 cases

Thomas v. Metro. Life Ins., 540 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (W.D. Okla. 2008). “” 15 O.S.2001 § 754(2). MetLife argues that under this exclusion from coverage, plaintiff Thomas’s OCPA claims (and also plaintiffs Is-ing’s and Stout’s OCPA claims, were those claims not already disposed of by this order) should be dismissed because the subjects of those claims…”

Fields v. Hench's Country Liv'n Homes of Calera (E.D. Okla. 2025). “Jessup contends it is exempt from plaintiffs' OCPA claim pursuant to 15 O.S. § 754(2). [Dkt. 156, ¶ 23]. 1. Purported Unlawful Practices The threshold question is which provisions of § 753 plaintiffs' allegations implicate.”

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.