What is the name of the court where the Ohio Attorney General filed the complaint against Byrider?
Byrider Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
State of Ohio, ex rel Jim Petro Attorney General of Ohio vs. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, Inc., Byrider Franchising, Inc., Byrider Finance, Inc., Lakewood Car Credit Company, Lakewood Acceptance Corp., North Shore Auto Sales, Inc., North Shore Auto Financing, Inc., North Shore Phoenix Auto Sales, Inc., North Shore Phoenix Auto Financing, Inc., John Lance Motors, Inc., John Lance Motors Acceptance, Midwest Motors, Inc., MM Acceptance Corp., Magic Motors of Ohio, Inc., Forum Finance, Inc., RWV Sales Corporation, Approved Acceptance Corporation, AMT Auto Enterprise, Inc., Maxcredit Financial, Inc., R & M Auto Group, Inc., R & M Auto Finance, Inc., Rowland Motors, Inc., Rowland Marietta, Inc., JD Sales of Euclid, Inc., JDAC of Euclid, Inc., National Auto Group, Inc., and Motor Car Credit Co., Inc. (Cause No. 05CVH021505). On February 9, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, the Attorney General of Ohio sought to enjoin predecessor and its Ohio franchisees from violating the Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio's motor vehicle titling laws. For purposes of settlement only, a Complaint and Consent Judgment Entry and Order were filed concurrently on February 9, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio. The court enjoined predecessor and its Ohio franchisees from violating the Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio's motor vehicle titling laws and ordered predecessor and its Ohio franchisees to take remedial steps for the alleged violations.
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the Ohio Attorney General filed a complaint against Byrider in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio. The complaint, filed on February 9, 2005, sought to prevent Byrider and its Ohio franchisees from violating the Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio's motor vehicle titling laws. A Complaint and Consent Judgment Entry and Order were filed concurrently on the same day for settlement purposes. The court then ordered Byrider and its Ohio franchisees to take corrective actions for the alleged violations and enjoined them from further violations of the specified laws.
This legal action indicates that Byrider has faced scrutiny and legal challenges related to its business practices in the past. For a prospective franchisee, this highlights the importance of understanding and adhering to consumer protection laws and motor vehicle titling regulations in Ohio. It also suggests that Byrider has a history of regulatory oversight, which could impact how franchisees operate their businesses.
It is important for potential franchisees to conduct thorough due diligence, including reviewing the details of this litigation and understanding the remedial steps Byrider and its franchisees were required to take. This information can provide valuable insights into the potential legal and regulatory risks associated with operating a Byrider franchise in Ohio. Additionally, prospective franchisees should inquire about Byrider's current compliance programs and training to ensure they are well-prepared to meet all legal requirements.