To amend sections 715.44, 2307.71, and 2307.72 and to enact section 2307.801 of the Revised Code to prohibit public nuisance actions concerning product liability.
Summary
HB126 would amend Ohio’s product liability statutes to bar common-law public nuisance claims when the alleged nuisance is based on the design, manufacture, supply, marketing, distribution, promotion, advertising, labeling, or sale of a product. The bill adds a new section, 2307.801, stating that no person may bring such a public nuisance action and expressly says the General Assembly intends to codify the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation.
The bill also revises the definitions in Ohio’s product liability chapter to make clear that public nuisance claims of this kind are treated as product liability claims, and it states that the product liability provisions are intended to abrogate common-law product liability causes of action. It leaves intact municipal authority under section 715.44, but makes that authority subject to the new product-liability limitation. In practical terms, the bill would narrow the ability of governments or private parties to use nuisance law against manufacturers and sellers over harms tied to products, including claims often associated with opioids and other mass-tort products.
Impact
HB126 would change Ohio law by expressly precluding public nuisance lawsuits tied to product-related conduct and by folding those claims into the state’s product liability framework. It would affect claimants seeking damages from manufacturers, suppliers, and other participants in the chain of commerce, and it would likely limit litigation strategies used by local governments and other plaintiffs in cases involving alleged public harms from products. The bill also reinforces statutory definitions governing product liability actions and clarifies that common-law nuisance theories cannot be used to circumvent those limits.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. It passed the House Judiciary Committee 7-4 and then passed the full House 59-36, indicating a clear majority in favor but a substantial minority against it. The bill’s stated purpose of codifying an Ohio Supreme Court decision likely appealed to supporters seeking legal certainty, while opponents appear to have objected to restricting nuisance-based remedies in product-related litigation.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether Ohio should bar public nuisance claims that target product manufacturers and related actors, especially in contexts like opioid litigation. Supporters are likely to argue the bill prevents end-runs around product liability law and aligns with recent court precedent. Opponents are likely to argue it removes an important tool for governments and injured parties to address widespread harms and may shield companies from accountability. The tension is between limiting expansive nuisance theories and preserving broader avenues for public-health and tort claims.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.