What remedial steps were Byrider and its Ohio franchisees ordered to take in the Ohio case?
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, a case was filed on February 9, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, by the Attorney General of Ohio against Byrider and its Ohio franchisees. The lawsuit sought to prevent Byrider and its Ohio franchisees from violating the Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio's motor vehicle titling laws. As part of a settlement, the court issued a Consent Judgment Entry and Order on the same day. The court order mandated that Byrider and its Ohio franchisees take remedial steps for the alleged violations, in addition to enjoining them from further violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio's motor vehicle titling laws.
This means that Byrider franchisees in Ohio were required to correct past actions that were found to be in violation of consumer protection and vehicle titling laws. The specific nature of these remedial steps is not detailed in this section of the FDD, but they were intended to address the alleged violations.
A prospective franchisee should seek clarification from Byrider regarding the specific remedial steps that were required in the 2005 Ohio case. Understanding the nature of these past violations and the required remedies can provide valuable insight into Byrider's compliance history and the types of issues that franchisees might encounter. It would also be prudent to investigate whether similar issues have arisen in other states and how Byrider addressed them.