On March 30, 2026, the Public Health Law Center filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in Ohio v. Central Tobacco supporting the State’s effort to stop the sale of illegal flavored e-cigarettes. Our brief urges the Ohio Supreme Court to allow Ohio to enforce its consumer protection laws against retailers selling unauthorized tobacco products.

The crux of the case is whether federal law preempts Ohio’s Attorney General from enforcing state consumer protection law against a retailer that allegedly sold flavored -e-cigarette products that lack the required premarket authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Our brief makes clear that “there is no basis in logic or law for finding the Attorney General’s suit preempted” and emphasizes that the State is acting within its traditional police powers to protect consumers from misleading claims about harmful products. “[T]he defendant cannot flout federal law while claiming its protections.”

Why the Public Health Law Center Filed

Federal law requires FDA authorization before new tobacco products can enter the market. Moreover, “there is no dispute that federal law prohibits the sale of these flavored e-cigarettes because they lack the requisite FDA authorization.” The brief explains that the state is not enforcing federal law, and argues that the Attorney General, in its capacity to enforce state law, should not be preempted from exercising its police powers to protect the public against deceptive and misleading marketing claims surrounding these products.

Public Health Context

Our brief highlights broad public health concerns, noting that flavored e-cigarettes are highly addictive and the most popular tobacco products used by young people. We also underscore the real world -impact of retail availability, pointing out that the defendant sold these products “within walking distance of a middle school and a high school.”

The Role of States

A central theme of the brief is the critical role state consumer protection laws play in protecting public health. Federal regulation alone is not enough, especially given enforcement limitations, as the FDA itself readily admits. “[S]tate laws and enforcement actions fill critical gaps by addressing local or regional concerns and responding more quickly to new forms of consumer fraud and new risks to public health.”

What’s at Stake

Our brief warns that the lower court’s decision could weaken these protections by overextending federal preemption and limiting the ability of states to act. Such an outcome would also allow retailers to evade accountability. Finally, we describe the opposing argument as resting on the

“absurd premise” that a company could “violate the Tobacco Control Act, lie to Ohio consumers about its violation, and then use the Tobacco Control Act as a shield against state action.”

For public health professionals, this case highlights the importance of state and local governments enforcing their own laws to reduce access to illegal tobacco products. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision will clarify that state role. An outcome in favor of state enforcement authority would reinforce a critical layer of public health protection.

Learn More

For additional background and policy guidance, see these resources from the Public Health Law Center:

Willow Anderson, Senior Staff Attorney
April 3, 2026