2019 Ohio 2094
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Kohl’s ran a promotion: customers earned $10 "Kohl’s Cash" for every $50 spent during an earning period; Kohl’s Cash could be redeemed during a later redemption period.
- Kohl’s allowed customers to stack Kohl’s Cash with percent-off coupons; Kohl’s routinely applied Kohl’s Cash first, then percent-off coupons.
- The Kohl’s Cash advertisement did not disclose the order of application; the back of the Kohl’s Cash coupon did disclose the order.
- Laura Henry earned $70 in Kohl’s Cash after a March 30, 2013 purchase and, on April 2, 2013, used that $70 Kohl’s Cash plus a 20% off coupon on an $80.24 purchase; Kohl’s applied Kohl’s Cash first.
- Henry alleged Kohl’s violated Ohio Admin. Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1) (an advertisement rule under the Ohio CSPA) by failing to state a "material limitation" in close proximity to the written offer and filed a class-action CSPA claim; the trial court granted Kohl’s summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kohl’s failure to disclose the order of coupon application in the Kohl’s Cash advertisement violated Ohio Admin. Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1) (a "material limitation") | Henry: the order of application is a material limitation because it affects the consumer's ultimate price/savings and should be disclosed near the offer | Kohl’s: the order does not limit or restrict the offer to earn or redeem Kohl’s Cash; it merely affects the dollar value of a separate percent-off coupon; order was disclosed on the coupon itself | Court: Order of application is not a "material limitation" on the Kohl’s Cash offer as a matter of law; summary judgment for Kohl’s affirmed |
| Whether a technical nondisclosure requires finding a CSPA violation given reasonableness/deception considerations | Henry: nondisclosure of material limitation could deceive consumers | Kohl’s: no actionable deception because the offer to earn and redeem Kohl’s Cash was not restricted | Court: unnecessary to reach reasonableness because there was no material limitation; no deceptive act as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burdens and moving-party obligations)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (standards for entering summary judgment when nonmoving party fails to show genuine issue)
- Renner v. Procter & Gamble Co., 54 Ohio App.3d 79 (4th Dist. 1988) (apply plain meaning of CSPA administrative rules)
- Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2016) (courts must follow plain language of statutes and rules)
- Shumaker v. Hamilton Chevrolet, Inc., 184 Ohio App.3d 326 (4th Dist. 2009) (reasonableness inquiry where technical rule violations occur)