469, 473 (M.D.La.1996). Because Dickerson has not proved each of the elements of the bona fide defense, the Court cannot apply it to immunize her from FDCPA liability. Thus, the Court DENIES Dickerson’s Motion for Summary Judgment on her claim of the bona fide error defense. D. OCSPA Claims Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their OCSPA claims. The OCSPA provides that “[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or afte Spa, Inc., Case No. CV863-1158, 1986 WL 363150 (1986) (finding that a company engaging in the business of collecting consumer debts is a “supplier”); see also Schroyer v. Frankel, 197 F.3d 1170, 1177 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Under well-settled Ohio and federal case law,
holding that the definition of supplier under the ocspa is substantially broader than the definition of debt collector under the fdcpa holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that rawlings  a codefendant in the present action  is not a debt collector within the meaning of the fdcpa holding that back rent is debt under the fdcpa