Anderson v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc.

Citations

• 169 N.E.3d 252
• 2021 Ohio 693

Syllabus

Civ.R. 56(C) declaratory and injunctive relief deceptive act or practice R.C. 1345.02(A) multiple-unit pricing promotions R.C. 1345.02(B)(8) specific price advantage Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1) Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3- 02(A)(2)(g). Trial court did not err in granting defendant retailer's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff consumer's motion for summary judgment on complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged deceptive acts or practices under R.C. 1345.02(A). There was nothing deceptive, untrue or inaccurate in defendant's multiple-unit pricing promotions. Plaintiff did not show that defendant's multiple-unit pricing promotions represented that a specific price advantage existed when it did not under R.C. 1345.02(B)(8) and presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could otherwise find that defendant's representations were false, material and would mislead a reasonable consumer. Defendant's failure to state in its advertisements that a consumer must purchase at least one unit of the advertised product for the pro-rata advertised sales price to apply did not violate Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(2)(g) and did not constitute a deceptive act or practice under Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1) or R.C. 1345.02(A).