SB 793 adds Part 7.5 to California's Health and Safety Code to prohibit selling, offering for sale, or distributing a counterfeit lighter or an "unsafe lighter" in the state. The bill ties safety to two ASTM International standards (F400 for cigarette/pipe/cigar lighters and F2201 for fireplace/grill/utility lighters and lighting rods/gas matches) and defines counterfeit lighters by infringement of U.S. or state-protected intellectual property rights.
The measure exempts interstate transportation and nonretail warehouse storage from the prohibition. For compliance professionals, IP owners, manufacturers, and retailers, the bill replaces a performance-based child-safety criterion with specific ASTM references and creates a separate IP-based ban, shifting the compliance conversation from a single safety regime to a combined safety-and-IP enforcement posture that will affect sourcing, testing, and marketplace listings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or distribute lighters that either (1) infringe protected intellectual property or (2) fail to meet ASTM F400 or F2201 safety standards. It limits the ban’s reach by excluding interstate transport and non‑retail warehouse storage.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers, importers, distributors, online and brick-and-mortar retailers, marketplaces, and brand owners in the lighter supply chain. State and local enforcement entities will also be implicated for oversight and compliance actions.
Why It Matters
By embedding ASTM standards and an IP-based prohibition into state law, California creates clear technical thresholds for product safety while empowering IP enforcement through sales restrictions — a dual approach that raises compliance costs and evidentiary requirements for anyone placing lighters into California commerce.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 793 creates a new statutory scheme that targets two distinct hazards at point of sale: unsafe ignition devices and counterfeit products. The bill defines an "unsafe lighter" by reference to two named ASTM International standards — F400, which governs small lighters used for cigars, cigarettes, and pipes, and F2201, which covers larger lighters and devices used for fireplaces, grills, utilities, as well as lighting rods and gas matches.
Any lighter sold or distributed in California must comply with the applicable ASTM standard or it is unlawful under this law.
Separately, the text defines a "counterfeit lighter" as a lighter that infringes intellectual property rights protected under federal or state law. That means a product that copies a protected mark, design, or other IP-protected element may be barred from sale in California independent of its safety profile.
The statute therefore creates two independent grounds for prohibition — safety noncompliance and IP infringement — which can operate together or separately.The bill is narrowly focused on the point of sale and distribution: it prohibits selling, offering for sale, or distributing the banned items in California, but explicitly does not apply to interstate transportation (moving goods through the state) or to storage in warehouses or distribution centers that are not open to the public for retail sale. The law’s operative definitions (what counts as a lighter, what counts as counterfeit or unsafe) will govern scope, but the text delegates none of the implementation mechanics — it does not specify a testing or certification regime, a state agency responsible for approvals, or statutory penalties in the prose provided.For regulated parties, the practical tasks are straightforward in concept but complex in execution: determine which ASTM standard covers each SKU, secure documentation and test reports demonstrating compliance, and ensure listings or products do not infringe protected IP.
For IP owners, the statute supplies a statutory sales prohibition that complements federal IP tools; for enforcement bodies, the statute raises questions about how compliance will be proven and which evidence (lab reports, certificates, or IP judgments) suffices to remove items from the market.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or distribute a "counterfeit lighter" or an "unsafe lighter" in California, subject to two narrow exceptions.
It defines "unsafe lighter" by specific ASTM standards: F400 for lighters used with cigars, cigarettes, or pipes, and F2201 for lighters, lighting rods, and gas matches used with fireplaces, grills, or utilities.
A "counterfeit lighter" is any lighter that infringes an intellectual property right protected by federal or state law — the prohibition is IP-based, not limited to trademark-only counterfeits.
The prohibition does not apply to (1) interstate transportation of counterfeit or unsafe lighters through the state or (2) storage in non‑retail warehouses or distribution centers not open to the public.
The statutory text sets definitions and prohibitions but does not specify enforcement mechanisms, certification procedures, or penalty provisions in the sections provided.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a new part in Health and Safety Code for counterfeit and unsafe lighters
This heading inserts a standalone part into Division 12 of the Health and Safety Code dedicated to regulating lighters. Practically, that gives the state a discrete statutory location for lighter-related prohibitions and definitions, which matters for future rulemaking, enforcement delegations, and cross-references in other laws.
Primary prohibition on sale, offer for sale, and distribution
The core operative clause bars selling, offering for sale, or distributing counterfeit or unsafe lighters within California. Note that the verbs used target commercial placement into the market rather than possession, manufacture in a closed facility, or import in transit; compliance therefore centers on the supply chain steps that introduce products to consumers in the state.
Two express exceptions: transport and nonretail storage
The statute explicitly exempts (A) interstate transportation through California and (B) storage in warehouses or distribution centers that are not open to the public for retail sale or distribution. Those carve-outs preserve logistics flows and warehousing operations, but they also shift the regulatory choke points to retailers, fulfillment centers that sell direct to consumers, and any distribution activity that becomes retail-facing.
Definitions: counterfeit, lighter, and unsafe lighter (ASTM references)
The bill defines key terms: (1) "counterfeit lighter" as an IP-infringing lighter under federal or state law; (2) "lighter" broadly as an electrical or mechanical fuel-operated ignition device intended for lighting cigars, cigarettes, fireplaces, grills, pipes, or utilities; and (3) "unsafe lighter" by reference to ASTM F400 (small smoking lighters) and ASTM F2201 (larger/utility lighters and lighting rods/gas matches). These definitions set the triggers for enforcement and determine which products — including novelty designs or imported variations — fall inside the ban.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers concerned with fire safety: they gain clearer statutory safety thresholds tied to recognized ASTM standards, which should reduce availability of lighters that fail basic mechanical safety features.
- Intellectual property owners and brands: rights holders receive a state-level sales prohibition against products that infringe their protected designs or marks, supplementing federal IP enforcement tools.
- Compliant manufacturers and authorized distributors: firms that already test to ASTM F400/F2201 or control legitimate supply chains benefit from a higher barrier to entry for noncompliant competitors and counterfeiters.
Who Bears the Cost
- Importers and small retailers selling low-cost or untested lighters: they must verify ASTM compliance and IP status for SKUs sourced from varied suppliers, increasing testing and documentation costs and potentially removing items from inventory.
- Online marketplaces and resellers: platforms may need to tighten listing controls, remove infringing or noncompliant products, and expand takedown and verification processes, which raises operational and moderation costs.
- State and local enforcement agencies: agencies must decide how to prove noncompliance or infringement in administrative or civil proceedings and may absorb investigatory and evidence-handling burdens absent new funding or delegated processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims — protecting consumers from unsafe ignition devices and protecting IP owners from counterfeit goods — but those goals pull in different directions: strict, evidence-based safety control favors clear testing and certification, while IP enforcement favors rapid removal of infringing goods; combining both without a clear procedural framework forces regulators and private firms to choose between swift market action and robust, defensible proof.
SB 793 draws a bright line by naming ASTM F400 and F2201, but the law leaves implementation gaps that matter in practice. The statute does not create a clear certification or labeling system (for example, a required certificate of conformity or a registration list), nor does it identify an enforcing agency or specify civil or criminal penalties in the provided provisions.
That creates uncertainty about the evidentiary standard that regulators or private enforcers will use: will a test report from a private lab suffice, will manufacturers need recurring certification, and how will disputed IP claims be handled at the point of sale?
The IP prohibition is similarly blunt: it bars products that "infringe on an intellectual property right of a citizen of the United States or a person that is protected by federal or state intellectual property law." The breadth raises questions about scope (design patents, trade dress, utility patents, copyrights, or trademarks) and whether preliminary IP allegations could be used to force market removals before adjudication. Finally, tying safety to ASTM standards improves technical clarity but also imports those standards’ revision cycles and test methodologies into law; businesses will need processes to track standard updates and to document compliance against the version that an enforcement action references.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.