Recent Blog Posts

Data centers are Ohio’s newest land use controversy.  With concerns ranging from water use to electricity prices to loss of farmland, the rapid onset of data center development has generated many questions and conflicts across the state.  In response, members of the Ohio legislature have introduced several bills on data center development, and we should see a few more bills introduced soon.  Here’s a review of recently introduced legislation.

Data Center Study Commission.  The first bill is H.B. 646, which would require formation of a Data Center Study Commission to study data center impacts in Ohio.  We explained H.B. 646 in an earlier post.  The bill had its first hearing before the House Technology and Innovation Committee on February 17, where the sponsors testified that data center development “introduces complex and immediate challenges” and that “it is both prudent and necessary that we, as policymakers, take the time to fully understand its implications and adopt an informed, integrated approach…”  The bill is already scheduled for a second hearing on February 24, an indication of continued interest in moving the bill forward.

Prohibitions on nondisclosure agreements. A second bill, H.B. 695, doesn’t address data centers directly but instead targets elected local officials who could have knowledge of such developments. The bill would prohibit county commissioners, township trustees, and village mayors and council members from knowingly entering into nondisclosure agreements that prohibit “disclosing, discussing, describing, or commenting on” matters related to official duties.   The bill would make the agreements void and unenforceable and impose civil fines of up to $1,000 on officials who violate the law. Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville), co-sponsor of the bill along with Rep. Adam Bird (R-New Richmond), explains that “in 11 years as a local elected official - dealing with scores of major development projects - I never signed an NDA, and I never would. Secrecy breeds distrust amongst the taxpayers, which is detrimental to economic development efforts.” The bill was referred to the House Local Government Committee on February 18, 2026.

Requirements for data center customers. A bi-partisan bill  introduced on February 17, 2026, by Rep. Tristan Rader (D-Lakewood) and Rep. David Thomas (R-Jefferson) aims to “ensure costs of new infrastructure and grid upgrades needed to serve these facilities are not shifted onto existing Ohio ratepayers.”  H.B. 706 would require long-term service agreements of at least 12 years with electric utilities for data center customers, require the Public Utilities Commission to create standards for interconnection practices, load study deposits, and milestone requirements. It would also prohibit utilities from recovering data center costs from other customer classes, set minimum gilling standards, and require financial assurance prior to facility construction. 

Democrats in the legislature suggest that several additional data center bills are under development.  Proposals we still might see include granting local governments the authority to reject proposed data center projects, eliminating the sales tax exemption for data centers, requiring facilities to cover costs for additional power generation or transmission, and establishing water consumption limits, reporting, and investments in water infrastructure.  Keep an eye on the Ohio Ag Law Blog for continued updates on data center legislation in Ohio.

The well-known advantages of business entities include liability protection, tax management, and shared management responsibilities. A lesser-known advantage is the relative ease of transferring ownership. When assets such as land, machinery, or livestock are held in an entity like an LLC, ownership interests in the entity can often be transferred far more efficiently than transferring each asset individually. Rather than retitling deeds, updating equipment titles, or reassigning livestock ownership, a transfer of membership interests can effectively shift ownership of all underlying assets in a single step.

Funding the LLC

The first step is to form the LLC and transfer the assets into it. Land is conveyed by deed, titled vehicles by title transfer, and untitled assets such as machinery and livestock by written assignment. This step is critical. Until the LLC is established and owns the assets, there is no entity ownership interest to transfer.

Transferring Ownership

Once the LLC is established and the assets are transferred to it, ownership interests can be transferred with relatively simple documentation. The transfer document should identify the current owner, the recipient, the percentage or units being transferred, the purchase price or value of the gift, and the effective date of the transfer. Both parties should sign and date the document. 

Documenting Value

While the transfer of ownership is relatively simple, it is important to document the value of the ownership being transferred.  If the transfer is a sale, the value will determine the amount of taxes that may be owed.  If the transfer is a gift, the value will determine if the transfer impacts the federal estate tax exemption. 

The value of a gifted ownership interest is its fair market value. That value should be supported by an appraisal or reliable market data. If the gift is undervalued, the IRS can adjust it to fair market value, potentially creating adverse tax consequences. While it may be tempting to rely on county auditor values or informal estimates for land, the better practice is to obtain a qualified appraisal. Although an appraisal adds expense, it is often a worthwhile investment to reduce the risk of problems in an IRS audit.

Example

Consider the following example to illustrate gifting through a business entity.

Farmer owns a farm and would like to gift it to Daughter. To minimize potential estate tax concerns, Farmer plans to make annual gifts over ten years, keeping each gift within the annual exclusion amount. Without using a business entity, Farmer would need to execute and record a new deed each year to transfer the annual interest in the property.

If the farm is first transferred to an LLC, however, each annual gift can be completed by transferring membership interests in the LLC through a simple written assignment. This approach avoids repeated deed preparation and recording. In addition, transfers of LLC interests are private transactions, while deeds are recorded and become public record.

As this example illustrates, using a business entity can make ownership transfers relatively simple. For farm and business owners considering a sale or gift of ownership, it may be worthwhile to explore whether establishing an entity would facilitate the transition. Because ownership transfers can carry significant tax and legal implications, legal and tax advisors should be involved in the planning process.

Note: for a thorough discussion on the tax implications of gifting, see the Gifting Assets Prior to Death bulletin available at farmoffice.osu.edu.

Over the past several years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Monsanto Company regarding the safety of its herbicide Roundup and its main ingredient glyphosate. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Monsanto Company’s petition to review one of these cases from the Missouri Court of Appeals, Durnell v. Monsanto Company.

Background of the case

In 2019, John Durnell of St. Louis sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, arguing that exposure to glyphosate contained in Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  Mr. Durnell argued that Monsanto should be found strictly liable for defective design of its product and for failure to warn users of the danger of using Roundup, as well as negligence. 

At trial, the jury sided with Monsanto on the defective design and negligence claims, meaning that the company was not found liable for these claims.  On the remaining claim, the 12-person jury unanimously found Monsanto to be strictly liable for its failure to warn of the risks of using glyphosate, granting Mr. Durnell $1.25 million in compensatory damages.

Eventually, Monsanto appealed the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, claiming that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts failure to warn claims under state law. Federal preemption of state law can happen either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption happens when a federal statute contains language that specifically says that other laws or requirements cannot be imposed. Implied preemption happens when there might not be explicit language in a statute calling out the preemption, but Congress’s intent to supersede state law is implicit due to the nature of the statute.  Here, the appeals court did not find Monsanto’s preemption argument persuasive; instead finding that the language in FIFRA did not expressly preempt Mr. Durnell’s failure to warn claim, and that there was no implied irreconcilable conflict between the state and federal law. You can read the Missouri Court of Appeals opinion in its entirety here.

Since the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Monsanto filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision on April 4, 2025. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Monsanto’s petition, agreeing to review the case. The Court has limited its review of the case to one question: “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.”

What are each side’s arguments for the Supreme Court?

In the lead up to a Supreme Court determination to hear a case, the legal teams for both parties file documents explaining why or why not the case should be heard.  The party asking the Court to hear the case (in this case, Monsanto) files a petition for writ of certiorari, laying out their reasons for asking for review. Then the respondent (Durnell), has a chance to file a brief with the Court detailing their arguments as to why the lower court’s decision should stand.  These documents can give us some insight into how each party may form its arguments if the case is heard before the Supreme Court.

Between the two parties in this case, there are hundreds of pages laying out their lines of reasoning for hearing or not hearing the case. In its most basic form, Monsanto’s argument is that language in FIFRA expressly preempts state requirements for the labeling and packaging of herbicides like Roundup. The language they point to is in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Code, Section 136v(b) and reads: “state(s) shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” You can see the statute here.  FIFRA requires pesticides to be registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can be sold or distributed in the country. Monsanto asserts that because EPA continues to accept Roundup’s product registration under FIFRA without requiring the company to include any warning or caution statement about the possible health risks of glyphosate on its labeling, any state law claim that would require such a warning should be overridden.  You can read Monsanto’s petition for writ of certiorari here.

For their part, Mr. Durnell’s legal team points to a case previously decided by the Supreme Court in 2005, Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (you can read that case here), in which the majority determined that state common-law claims like failure-to-warn are not automatically preempted by the language of FIFRA Section 136v(b). In Bates, the Court found that while FIFRA does preclude states from imposing different or additional labeling requirements for pesticides, it does not preclude states from imposing different or additional remedies. In other words, since “FIFRA does not provide a federal remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a…violation of FIFRA’s labeling requirements, nothing in [FIFRA] precludes the states from providing such a remedy.” Furthermore, Mr. Durnell’s lawyers argue that EPA’s continued acceptance of Roundup’s product registration does not necessarily prevent the requirement of a cancer or health warning on the label, it just means that that Monsanto has not provided any evidence of glyphosate’s potential health effects or asked EPA to consider including such a warning. You can read Durnell’s response here.

What’s next?

While it can be fun to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases, between the language of FIFRA and case law, I can’t begin to guess where the Court will end up in this case. What is certain is that the Court will examine “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” Oral arguments for each side will happen sometime between October 2026 and April 2027, and the Court may release an opinion on the case in May or June of 2027. Additionally, the Court’s final decision will likely have implications for similar lawsuits regarding Roundup and glyphosate throughout the country. We will do our best to keep you updated on this complicated case as it works through the system. In the meantime, additional court documents and filings on the case can be found here.

A collaboration of several agricultural organizations have established the Ohio Farm Transition Network, a new endeavor to promote farm transition planning in Ohio.  The following is the press release announcing its launch:

Ohio Farm Transition Network Launches to Strengthen Farm Succession Planning Across Ohio

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A new statewide initiative, the Ohio Farm Transition Network (OFTN), has officially launched operations to address one of the most pressing challenges facing Ohio agriculture: helping farm families successfully plan for the transition of their farms to the next generation.

Agricultural leaders from across Ohio have come together around a shared commitment to help farm families plan for the future by working from the same playbook. This collaboration aligns organizations, service providers, and educators around common language, expectations, and approaches to farm transition planning, reducing confusion for farmers and strengthening outcomes. “Farm families are best served when the industry is aligned and working together,” said Tim Hicks with Ohio Farm Bureau. “This collaborative effort reflects a shared responsibility to provide clear, consistent guidance that helps farmers make informed decisions and move confidently into the next generation.”

The Ohio Farm Transition Network will:

• Train and support attorneys, accountants, lenders, financial advisors, insurance professionals, Extension educators, and other agricultural service providers involved in farm transition planning
• Standardize terminology and best practices to improve the quality and reliability of transition planning services
• Serve as a statewide clearinghouse of educational resources and qualified service providers
• Increase awareness of the importance of proactive farm transition planning
• Measure progress and impact through data collection and reporting on completed transition plans

“OFTN exists to help farm families navigate the complex financial, legal, and personal decisions involved in passing a farm from one generation to the next,” said David Marrison, OSU Farm Management Specialist and Interim Director of the Farm Financial Management and Policy Institute. “By strengthening the professionals who support farm families and coordinating efforts across the agricultural community, OFTN will help preserve Ohio farms for future generations.”

In its first year, OFTN will offer professional training workshops, develop a comprehensive website, grow a statewide membership of trained service providers, and support the completion of farm transition plans across Ohio.

The Ohio Farm Transition Network was established through the collaboration of the following founding members:

• AgCredit
• Farm Credit Mid-America
• Nationwide
• Ohio Corn and Wheat
• Ohio Department of Agriculture
• Ohio Farm Bureau
• Ohio Soybean Council
• Ohio State University Extension
• USDA/Farm Service Agency

Funding for OFTN is generously provided by AgCredit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Nationwide, Ohio Corn and Wheat, and Ohio Soybean Council.

Together, all these organizations share a commitment to collaboration, education, and long-term sustainability for Ohio agriculture.

For more information about the Ohio Farm Transition Network, upcoming programs, or membership opportunities, contact David Marrison (marrison.2@osu.edu) or Robert Moore (moore.301@osu.edu).