Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against E-Cigarette Retailer, Deepening State-Federal Regulatory Dispute

Oct.15.2025
Ohio Appeals Court Rejects State Attorney General's Lawsuit Against E-Cigarette Retailer, Emphasizing FDA Regulatory Authority.

Key points:

 

  1. The Appeals Court of Ohio in the United States has rejected the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General against e-cigarette retailers. 
  2. The court ruled that the state consumer protection law cannot substitute for FDA pre-market approval regulation. 
  3. The court cited relevant rulings from the US Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
  4. The judgment further deepens the dispute over the jurisdictional boundaries between the state and federal government in regulating e-cigarettes.

 


 

According to the National Law Review, the Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by State Attorney General Dave Yost against e-cigarette retailer Central Tobacco & Stuff Inc. The prosecutor accused the company of selling e-cigarette products without FDA authorization and violating the state's Consumer Sales Practices Act by failing to inform consumers that the products lacked authorization.

 

The court held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its 2009 amendment, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, grant the FDA exclusive regulatory authority over tobacco products (including e-cigarettes). According to the "federal supremacy principle," states may not enact local consumer protection laws that add to or replace federal approval requirements.

 

Most opinions cite the United States Supreme Court rulings in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee and the Sixth Circuit Court case Loreto v. Procter & Gamble Co., determining that the lawsuit "lacks legal foundation without FDCA provisions" and is therefore implicitly precluded by federal law.

 

Judge King, who holds a different opinion, believes that state governments can still file lawsuits based on "deceptive sales practices" and that federal law does not completely strip states of their authority to regulate sales practices.

 

This case demonstrates that, when trying to regulate e-cigarettes using local consumer protection laws, states in the United States still face the overriding primacy of federal law.

 

Image source: PEXEL

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

UK HMRC Issues One-Month Countdown Warning, Urges Vape Businesses to Prepare for New Tax Rules
UK HMRC Issues One-Month Countdown Warning, Urges Vape Businesses to Prepare for New Tax Rules
The UK’s Vaping Products Duty and Vaping Duty Stamps Scheme will take effect on October 1, 2026. All vaping liquids manufactured in or imported into the UK will face a flat excise duty of £2.20 per 10ml, whether or not they contain nicotine. Newly manufactured or imported products released onto the UK market from October 1 will require a valid duty stamp, while eligible existing unstamped inventory can continue to be sold through March 31, 2027. From April 1, 2027, all vaping products outside duty suspension must carry a valid stamp.
Sep.03
After Apple Business Decline, South Korea’s ITM Semiconductor Expands KT&G Vape Supply Chain as Vape Revenue Rises 24.8%
After Apple Business Decline, South Korea’s ITM Semiconductor Expands KT&G Vape Supply Chain as Vape Revenue Rises 24.8%
South Korean electronics component supplier ITM Semiconductor is reshaping its business portfolio after a decline in Apple-related protection circuit business, expanding its supply of vape devices and cartridges to KT&G. According to News1 on August 18, 2026, ITM’s vape-related revenue rose 24.8% year on year to 75.5 billion won in the first half of 2026. The company began mass production of vape devices at its Cikarang, Indonesia facility in January 2026, strengthening export manufacturing capacity. Meanwhile, Samsung-related protection circuit sales continued to grow, providing support during the transition.
Aug.20
Charlie’s Says 30 PACHA Vape SKUs Tentatively Identified for FDA’s Non-Priority Enforcement Public List
Charlie’s Says 30 PACHA Vape SKUs Tentatively Identified for FDA’s Non-Priority Enforcement Public List
Charlie’s Holdings said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notified the company on June 23, 2026, that 30 PACHA vape SKUs with submitted PMTAs had been tentatively identified for inclusion on a planned public-facing FDA webpage. Under enforcement guidance issued by FDA in May, the webpage is intended to identify certain unauthorized products for which the agency generally does not intend to prioritize enforcement of premarket authorization requirements. Charlie’s disclosed the development alongside second-quarter revenue of $3.8 million, up 116% year over year.
Aug.25
South Korea Vape Strategies Diverge as BAT Reconsiders Exit and PMI Takes VEEV to About 14,000 Stores
South Korea Vape Strategies Diverge as BAT Reconsiders Exit and PMI Takes VEEV to About 14,000 Stores
BAT Rothmans says it previously considered exiting South Korea's vaping market because of competitive pressure from unregulated products, but is now reassessing conditions following changes to the country's nicotine regulatory framework. Vuse and other BAT vaping products remain available through existing distribution channels. The statement followed a South Korean media report that interpreted BAT's broader withdrawal from selected Vapour markets as a full exit from South Korea. Meanwhile, Philip Morris International launched VEEV inPRIME in the country in June and began expanding distribution to around 14,000 convenience stores and other retail channels in July. The contrasting moves highlight differing investment strategies as South Korea's regulated vaping market evolves.
Aug.14
NAS 2026 | Former FDA Tobacco Chief Mitch Zeller Calls for Shift From “End Game” to “End State”
NAS 2026 | Former FDA Tobacco Chief Mitch Zeller Calls for Shift From “End Game” to “End State”
At the 2026 New Approaches Summit in New York, former FDA Center for Tobacco Products Director Mitch Zeller called for the tobacco harm reduction debate to shift from the traditional “end game” toward defining a desired “end state.” He also highlighted unresolved concerns around dual use, argued that biomarkers of exposure may be more meaningful than cigarettes-per-day in assessing risk reduction, and said nicotine misperceptions remain a major barrier to public health progress.
Sep.25
Exclusive Analysis | Smoore H1 Revenue Rises 19.9% Amid Growth Concentration, Profit Pressure and Slowing Momentum
Exclusive Analysis | Smoore H1 Revenue Rises 19.9% Amid Growth Concentration, Profit Pressure and Slowing Momentum
Smoore’s first-half 2026 revenue rose 19.9%, but the results revealed growing structural risks beneath the headline growth. Heat-not-burn contributed about 61% of incremental revenue and remains driven largely by one core customer, while traditional vaping markets diverged, own-brand growth slowed and China enterprise revenue declined further. Gross profit and adjusted profit lagged revenue growth, while second-quarter revenue growth slowed to about 1.9%, putting greater focus on the quality, concentration and sustainability of Smoore’s expansion.
Capital Markets
Aug.20