LG Chemicals Wins Lawsuit in Ohio over E-Cigarette Battery Explosion

Nov.14.2022
LG Chemicals Wins Lawsuit in Ohio over E-Cigarette Battery Explosion
LG Chem wins lawsuit over e-cigarette battery explosion, as judge rules they had no jurisdiction over the case.

LG Chem Ltd. has successfully defeated a lawsuit in Ohio over exploding batteries in electronic cigarettes. A federal judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction over the case, as the company, although having contact with the state, was not related to the disputed product.


Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio wrote on Wednesday that the Seoul-based company has done enough business in Ohio, but the issue is that the plaintiff, Paul Straight's claims are not related to this business.


Although the judge pointed out that there was a dispute in court regarding whether a claim for injury caused by "unauthorized, independent use" of e-cigarette devices with batteries was related to the transportation of non-e-cigarette device battery packs by LG Chemical, he said he did not need to make a judgment on this argument.


This puts plaintiffs in a weakened position," wrote Judge Graham in his 14-page opinion. "There is no direct or close relationship between LG Chem and Ohio's contact with the 18650 battery that caused the plaintiffs' injuries.


Straight claims in his lawsuit that the battery of his e-cigarette exploded, causing burns to his left thigh and causing his jeans to catch on fire. He alleges that he suffered second and third-degree burns to his thigh and left wrist, which have now left him limping.


He has filed a lawsuit against LG Chem and its American subsidiary. He has also sued Vapor Station LLC for selling him a battery from one of their stores, as well as the company that supplied the battery to the store. The claims include violations of implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Ohio state law.


LG Chemical maintains that it has not authorized any company to sell individual batteries. The judge pointed out that these batteries are meant for use in battery packs for power tools and other products.


Judge Graham has allowed for evidence collection to help resolve the jurisdictional dispute. LG Chem argues that it did not manufacture, sell, or distribute batteries in Ohio, while Straight maintains that the company's other business activities in the state are sufficient for the judge to exercise a specific jurisdiction.


The judge does not accept what is being said.


Judge Graham stated, "In fact, LG Chem has confirmed that it neither received revenue from the sale or distribution of 18650 batteries in Ohio, nor advertised or solicited business for 18650 batteries in Ohio.


Although the judge stated that Straight could not reject LG Chem's claim by testing for "association," he also rejected Straight's argument that it was unfair to dismiss the case because evidence showed that LG Chem knew the batteries were being used for vaping devices and posed a risk.


However, the lawsuit against another defendant is still under trial. Straight withdrew claims against Vapor Station and LG Chem's US subsidiary, but its claims against Picktown Vapor LLC for distributing batteries still remain.


A spokesperson for LG Energy Solutions, which is currently responsible for producing LG batteries, declined to comment on Thursday.


The lawyer for Straight did not immediately respond to a request for comment via email on Thursday.


This case has the docket number 2:20-cv-06551 and is being heard in the Southern District of Ohio court in the United States.


Statement:


This article is a compilation of third-party information intended for industry exchange and learning purposes only.


This article does not represent the views of 2FIRSTS, and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the authenticity or accuracy of the content of the article. The translation of this article is only intended for communication and research within the industry.


Due to limitations in translation ability, the translated article may not fully reflect the original text. Please refer to the original text.


2FIRSTS aligns completely with the Chinese government on any statements or positions related to domestic affairs, issues involving Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and foreign relations.


The copyright of compiled information belongs to the original media and author. If there is any infringement, please contact us to request deletion.



Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

IVG Parent Secures HMRC Excise Warehouse and Duty Stamp Approvals Ahead of UK Vape Tax
IVG Parent Secures HMRC Excise Warehouse and Duty Stamp Approvals Ahead of UK Vape Tax
Acme Vape Ltd, the company behind UK vaping brand IVG, has received HM Revenue & Customs approval to operate an excise warehouse for vaping products and participate in the Vaping Duty Stamps Scheme. The UK's Vaping Products Duty will take effect on October 1, 2026, at a flat rate of £2.20 per 10ml of vaping liquid. Acme Vape Ltd says its approved warehouse in Preston will become operational under the new regime on the same date.
Regulations
Sep.18 by 2Firsts Perspectives
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company Launches Flavored Vuse Pro Pods in U.S. Without FDA Marketing Authorization
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company Launches Flavored Vuse Pro Pods in U.S. Without FDA Marketing Authorization
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company has begun selling four flavored Vuse Pro pods — Peach, Berry, Watermelon and Fresh Mint — in Ohio and selected other U.S. markets. According to the Vuse U.S. FAQ, Vuse Pro contains approximately 5.0% nicotine by weight, and Vuse Pro pre-filled pods are intended for use with Vuse Alto devices. Reynolds told 2Firsts that product labeling lists an e-liquid capacity of 2.0 mL per pod. The Vuse Alto Power Unit received FDA marketing authorization in 2024, while the new Vuse Pro pods themselves have not received marketing granted orders. The rollout follows the FDA’s May 2026 revision of enforcement priorities for certain unauthorized vaping products with qualifying pending applications.
BAT
Sep.10
U.S. Rep. Krishnamoorthi Questions FDA Over Planned PMTA Rewrite, Seeks Communications With Altria and Reynolds
U.S. Rep. Krishnamoorthi Questions FDA Over Planned PMTA Rewrite, Seeks Communications With Altria and Reynolds
U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi on Oct. 6 questioned the FDA over its plan to reassess and potentially replace the 2021 PMTA regulatory framework, asking the agency to identify provisions it may change or eliminate, state whether current scientific evidentiary standards will be maintained, and disclose communications with Altria, Reynolds and other parties challenging the rule. Krishnamoorthi led a congressional investigation into JUUL and youth vaping in 2019 and has since remained active on e-cigarette regulation and enforcement.
Regulations
Oct.08
Swedish-Founded Nicotine Pouch Retailer GotPouches Shifts to U.S.-Based Operations, Reaching Over 25 States
Swedish-Founded Nicotine Pouch Retailer GotPouches Shifts to U.S.-Based Operations, Reaching Over 25 States
Swedish-founded online nicotine pouch retailer GotPouches has completed the localization of its U.S. operations under UpNorth Retail LLC, with corporate operations in Franklin, Tennessee, domestic fulfillment from Nashville and U.S.-based customer support. The company says its catalog covers more than 20 nicotine pouch brands and it currently serves customers in more than 25 U.S. states.
Sep.18
GAO Audit Finds Nearly 132,000 FDA Tobacco Applications Waiting an Average 1,266 Days as Nicotine Pouch Pilot Practices Move Into Vape PMTA Reviews
GAO Audit Finds Nearly 132,000 FDA Tobacco Applications Waiting an Average 1,266 Days as Nicotine Pouch Pilot Practices Move Into Vape PMTA Reviews
A U.S. Government Accountability Office audit found that 131,915 tobacco product applications submitted to the FDA since 2018 remained without a final review as of December 31, 2025, with pending applications waiting an average of 1,266 days. GAO also found FDA lacks the data needed to systematically determine whether scientific reviews meet applicable timelines. HHS agreed to upgrade the agency's tracking systems. At the same time, FDA has begun applying lessons from its nicotine pouch PMTA pilot to e-cigarette reviews, while changes to enforcement policy and electronic submissions are making the specific stage of a PMTA increasingly relevant to market access.
FDA
Oct.03
South Korea Fully Reviews Nicotine-Analog and Nicotine-Free Vape Liquid Imports, With Over 99% From China and Chinese Supply-Chain Documents Under Scrutiny
South Korea Fully Reviews Nicotine-Analog and Nicotine-Free Vape Liquid Imports, With Over 99% From China and Chinese Supply-Chain Documents Under Scrutiny
Korea Customs Service has tightened import controls on nicotine-analog and nicotine-free e-cigarette liquids, placing the products under 100% document review and subjecting all e-cigarette liquid import declarations to pre-clearance ingredient analysis. As of September 20, 2026, South Korea had imported about 15 metric tons of nicotine-analog liquids, 99.99% from China, and about 316 metric tons of nicotine-free liquids, including roughly 315 metric tons, or 99.7%, from China. The measures follow South Korea's April expansion of its tobacco definition to include synthetic nicotine products and include new checks on Chinese manufacturing, transaction and export documentation.
Sep.24