The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday declined to review the Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision upholding Multnomah County’s ban on flavored tobacco and nicotine products.

Legal challenges have so far delayed the ordinance from taking effect since it was passed four years ago. It was not immediately clear when the ban would go into effect.

“Flavors are one of Big Tobacco’s biggest tricks to hook the next generation of Oregonians on their deadly products,” Christina Bodamer, who leads the Western states region of the American Heart Association, said following the court’s decision.

The Board of County Commissioners originally approved the ordinance banning flavored tobacco and nicotine products in December 2022 to take effect Jan. 1, 2024. But the ordinance hit a roadblock: a court challenge by the 21+ Tobacco and Vapor Retail Association of Oregon, e-cigarette retailer No Moke Daddy LLC, and vape shop owner Paul Bates.

It has been working its way through the state court system since. The Multnomah County Circuit Court upheld the ban in September 2023. The state Court of Appeals continued the pause on implementation February 2024, before upholding the ban in an April 2025 decision. The Supreme Court’s denial of review marks the end of the saga.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a similar restriction in Washington County in May. That now sets up both ordinances to go into effect, which will together ban flavored tobacco and nicotine for one-third of Oregonians. A similar ban failed in the Oregon Legislature in 2025, dying in committee.

Tobacco use is the top cause of preventable death and disease in Oregon, according to the Oregon Health Authority. More than 8,000 Oregonians die from tobacco use each year.

Supporters of the ban argue that flavored tobacco acts as a gateway for underage use. According to Flavors Hook Oregon Kids, a coalition of more than 60 organizations that support the ban, 81% of Oregonian kids who’ve used tobacco started with flavored products. And flavored products are much more popular among kids and young adults than older adults, OHA says.

Richard Burke, executive director of the 21+ Tobacco and Vapor Retail Association of Oregon, tells WW the group is disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take up the case. He argues that banning flavored tobacco “has effectively granted a monopoly to the black market,” where flavored products are often laced with more dangerous substances.

“We agree with the goal of keeping these products out of the hands of minors,” Burke says. “But this is an overcorrection that will result in unintended consequences as has been shown by attempts to institute flavor bans in other parts of the country.”

Willamette Week’s reporting has real-life impact that changes laws, forces action by civic leaders, and drives compromised politicians from public office.

Support WW.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and attorneys general from 11 other states filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block Paramount Skydance Corp.’s proposed $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing the merger would reduce competition and ultimately raise costs for consumers.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges the merger violates the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the film and television industries.

California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Washington are the other states involved in the lawsuit.

The coalition said it is prepared to seek a temporary restraining order if the companies do not pause the deal as the case moves forward.

“If this massive corporate merger is allowed to go through, Oregonians will pay the price – through higher bills, fewer jobs, less choice at the box office, and fewer editorial voices,” Rayfield said in a press release on Monday. “Despite the federal regulators rubber-stamping this bad deal, we’re stepping up to protect families, small businesses, and Oregon’s film industry.”

READ ALSO | Warner Bros shareholders back $81B Paramount takeover in preliminary vote

According to the lawsuit, the combined company would control nearly one-third of U.S. theatrical film distribution and basic cable programming. The states argue the merger would eliminate competition between two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the nation’s five largest basic cable companies.

The complaint alleges the merger would reduce competition in theatrical film distribution, blockbuster movie releases and licensing basic cable television channels.

The filing follows Oregon’s investigation into the proposed merger. In early July, Rayfield asked a Multnomah County judge to compel Paramount to produce records the state said it had sought since June, including documents related to the company’s lobbying of the White House and U.S. Department of Justice.

“Paramount has already shown that they think they’re above the law by refusing to comply with Oregon’s investigation,” Rayfield said. “This litigation is the next step to protect Oregonians before irreparable harm is done.”

The U.S. Justice Department isn’t challenging the deal — and instead released an unusually lengthy statement in support, maintaining a Paramount-Warner combo would “increase competition across the media and entertainment ecosystem, with benefits for American consumers and workers,” according to a report from the Associated Press.

In a statement sent out on Monday, Paramount said the lawsuit “distorts settled antitrust law” and maintained its merger would create a “stronger competitor against dominant streaming and technology platforms who have harmed the market for theatrical exhibition and jobs in the entertainment industry.” Paramount went on to say it will “vigorously defend” the transaction.