Ohio’s recent legislative changes regarding hemp regulations have introduced significant felony risks for individuals in the industry. The Kollin Firm is actively challenging Senate Bill 56, advocating for a reevaluation of the implications this bill poses to hemp producers and distributors. This legal battle seeks to address the potential consequences of the new rules, ensuring that the rights and livelihoods of those involved in the hemp sector are protected. The firm remains committed to fostering a fair and equitable regulatory environment. Ohio businesses selling hemp-derived flower, gummies, or vapor products may now face a frightening question: could products they believe are federally lawful expose them to felony prosecution under Ohio law?
That danger is at the center of a federal lawsuit filed by The Kollin Firm on behalf of three businesses that manufacture or sell hemp-derived products. According to the complaint, Ohio Senate Bill 56 redraws the line between hemp and marijuana in a way that threatens businesses, employees, and consumers with serious criminal consequences.
The verified complaint was filed on July 29, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton. The plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because they allege that continued enforcement exposes them to felony prosecution and immediate business harm.
The case is GL Distro, LLC, et al. v. Mathias H. Heck, Jr., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00274.
This is active litigation. The complaint contains the plaintiffs’ allegations, and the court has not yet issued a final ruling on their claims.
Why Ohio’s Hemp Industry Should Pay Attention
This case is not a general challenge to every hemp regulation. It focuses on certain hemp-derived products that the plaintiffs allege satisfy federal requirements but may now be classified as marijuana under Ohio law.
For manufacturers and retailers, that classification can mean more than lost inventory or interrupted sales. The filings allege that continued enforcement creates a risk of felony prosecution, product seizure, damaged business relationships, and immediate financial harm. Consumers and employees may also face uncertainty about products that previously moved through ordinary commercial channels.
The practical warning is simple: a product labeled or marketed as hemp is not automatically protected from enforcement under Ohio law. Businesses handling hemp-derived cannabinoid products should understand how Senate Bill 56 may affect their inventory, suppliers, shipping practices, and criminal exposure.
Who Brought the Lawsuit?
The plaintiffs represent different parts of an interstate hemp supply chain:
- GL Distro, LLC is a North Carolina manufacturer and distributor of hemp flower, vaporizable hemp products, gummies, and other hemp-derived products.
- Goldwasser, LLC, doing business as Best Buds Depot, operates a retail store in Trotwood, Ohio.
- Hustle Hall, LLC, doing business as Becky’s Greenhouse, operates a retail store in Dayton, Ohio.
According to the complaint, GL Distro tested its products for federal compliance and supplied products to the two Ohio retailers before Senate Bill 56 took effect. The plaintiffs allege that the law disrupted those relationships and prevented them from participating in Ohio’s market on equal terms.
The named defendants include the Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, the law directors for Dayton and Trotwood, the Ohio Attorney General, and a proposed defendant class consisting of the prosecuting attorneys for Ohio’s remaining counties.
What Changed Under Senate Bill 56?
Senate Bill 56 took effect on March 20, 2026. The lawsuit alleges that the law narrowed Ohio’s definition of hemp in a way that reclassifies certain products that qualify as hemp under federal law as marijuana under Ohio law.
The federal definition generally focuses on whether a cannabis product contains no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. The filings state that Ohio previously used a similar approach. Senate Bill 56, however, allegedly applies the 0.3 percent threshold across THC compounds more broadly.
According to the plaintiffs, that change has serious consequences. Products that remain hemp under federal law may be treated as marijuana under Ohio law, exposing manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumers to controlled-substance enforcement.
The plaintiffs do not argue that Ohio is prohibited from regulating hemp products. Their filings state that Ohio may impose evenhanded requirements involving testing, labeling, packaging, age restrictions, and product safety. The lawsuit instead challenges what the plaintiffs describe as discriminatory treatment of federally lawful products entering Ohio through interstate commerce.
The Constitutional Claims
The verified complaint presents three primary claims.
Dormant Commerce Clause
The plaintiffs allege that Senate Bill 56 unlawfully burdens and discriminates against interstate commerce. Their position is that federally compliant products from outside Ohio become prohibited when they enter the state. At the same time, Ohio’s closed marijuana-licensing system provides a lawful channel for certain in-state businesses. The complaint argues that this structure excludes out-of-state manufacturers and disadvantages Ohio retailers that rely on interstate suppliers.
Federal Preemption
The plaintiffs also rely on the 2018 Farm Bill, which prohibits states from blocking the transportation or shipment of federally compliant hemp through their territory. The complaint alleges that Ohio cannot avoid that federal protection by reclassifying the products as marijuana when they cross the state line. On that basis, the plaintiffs argue that the challenged provisions are preempted by federal law and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause.
Deprivation of Federal Rights
The third claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs allege that enforcement of the challenged provisions deprives them of federal constitutional and statutory rights, including their right to participate in lawful interstate commerce without unconstitutional state interference.
Why the Lawsuit Requests Statewide Relief
The Kollin Firm’s filings do not seek relief limited to one store or one county.
The plaintiffs ask the court to provisionally certify a defendant class of all 88 Ohio county prosecuting attorneys. Their position is that an interstate shipment can enter or pass through multiple Ohio counties, each with its own prosecuting authority. An order limited to Montgomery County would not necessarily protect products moving through the rest of the state.
The requested injunction would restrain enforcement against the plaintiffs and against the manufacture, shipment, transportation, storage, distribution, or retail sale of products that qualify as hemp under federal law.
The plaintiffs also ask the court to declare the challenged portions of Senate Bill 56 unconstitutional and preempted, award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant other appropriate relief.
Prior Decisions Cited by the Plaintiffs
The filings point to several earlier decisions involving similar issues.
In Titan Logistics Group LLC v. Tischler, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued a temporary restraining order in June 2026 and later entered a preliminary injunction protecting the plaintiffs and specified products in that case.
The complaint also cites rulings in North Fork Distribution I, LLC v. Wensinger, an Ohio state-court case, and Loki Brands, LLC v. Platkin, a federal case involving a New Jersey hemp law.
Those decisions do not automatically protect the plaintiffs in the new Dayton case. The Kollin Firm’s filings argue that separate relief is necessary because GL Distro, Best Buds Depot, and Becky’s Greenhouse were not parties to those earlier cases.
What Happens Next?
The court will determine whether emergency relief is appropriate and whether the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Those early decisions would not necessarily resolve the entire case, but they could determine whether the challenged provisions may be enforced against the plaintiffs while the litigation proceeds.
The case raises significant questions for hemp manufacturers, retailers, consumers, prosecutors, and regulators throughout Ohio. It also highlights the tension that can arise when federal and state definitions treat the same product differently.
The Kollin Firm will continue to monitor the case and provide updates as the litigation develops.
Businesses and individuals facing criminal, regulatory, or constitutional questions need counsel that understands both the immediate risk and the larger legal issues. To discuss your situation, contact The Kollin Firm at 937-490-4700 or visit kollinfirm.com/contact.
This article is for general informational purposes and discusses allegations and legal arguments in an active case. It does not predict the outcome and is not legal advice. Past rulings in other cases do not guarantee a similar result.
