According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1313 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill creates a new Class B misdemeanor offense related to the use of certain prohibited images and signage in the advertising and marketing of tobacco and e-cigarette products. While the exact number of offenses that may result from this new statute is unknown, the LBB assumes that the associated costs—such as those related to enforcement, prosecution, or adjudication—would be minimal and manageable within existing resources.

Additionally, the LBB does not anticipate a notable effect on state correctional populations or a material increase in the demand for correctional facilities or supervision. Because Class B misdemeanors are generally handled at the local level, any related incarceration or probationary costs would primarily fall to county governments. However, even at the local level, the fiscal impact is projected to be negligible.

The Office of Court Administration and the Comptroller of Public Accounts contributed to this assessment, and neither agency projected a substantial budgetary effect. In summary, while SB 1313 creates a new criminal offense, it is not expected to introduce any significant financial burdens on state or local governments.

SB 1313 aims to prohibit tobacco retailers from using certain types of imagery in their advertising and marketing that may appeal to minors. This includes cartoon-like fictional characters, food product imagery like candy or juice, celebrity likenesses, and visuals imitating youth-oriented products. Retailers who violate this provision would be charged with a Class B misdemeanor—a criminal offense punishable by jail time and fines​.

While the bill’s stated intent is to protect youth from predatory advertising practices, its mechanism for doing so is ultimately a troubling expansion of government power into the realm of commercial speech. The bill criminalizes broad categories of imagery based on subjective standards of what might appeal to minors. These vague and sweeping restrictions risk infringing upon constitutionally protected forms of expression and open the door to inconsistent enforcement. Retailers, many of whom operate lawfully under existing restrictions on sales to minors, would face criminal penalties for signage choices that may be interpreted differently across jurisdictions.

Furthermore, by using criminal law to regulate advertising aesthetics, the bill sets a precedent for the government to police visual content on private property in ways that are neither narrowly tailored nor demonstrably necessary. This approach conflicts with the liberty principles of free enterprise and limited government. Businesses—especially small, independently owned ones—should not face criminal penalties for design choices absent direct harm or fraud. Education, voluntary compliance, or administrative regulation could achieve the bill’s health goals without resorting to criminalization.

In light of these concerns, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1313. The bill represents an unnecessary and excessive restriction on commercial expression and constitutes government overreach into private enterprise, despite its well-meaning intentions.

• Individual Liberty: The bill imposes restrictions on how business owners may express themselves through signage and advertising. By criminalizing the use of certain types of images—such as cartoon characters, celebrity likenesses, or visuals that resemble candy or juice—it places limits on commercial speech. Although commercial speech is subject to more regulation than individual speech, it remains protected under the First Amendment. The broad and subjective nature of the restrictions raises constitutional concerns and undermines individual liberty by allowing the government to determine what imagery is acceptable in the marketplace, even if the content is not inherently harmful or misleading.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill assumes that retailers are failing in their responsibility not to market to minors and substitutes state-imposed criminal penalties for private accountability. While it could be argued that the bill promotes responsible conduct by discouraging predatory marketing, it also shifts the burden of parental and individual responsibility to the state, rather than reinforcing a culture where informed adults and guardians make decisions for their families. This undermines the principle that individuals—not the government—are primarily responsible for personal and familial choices.
• Free Enterprise: The bill directly interferes with the ability of private businesses to market their products, imposing restrictions on creative expression and brand identity. For small retailers in particular, this could chill lawful advertising due to fear of prosecution, even if their intent was not to target minors. Businesses would need to second-guess their designs and signage, potentially stifling innovation and fair competition. This represents a significant intrusion into the free market, where consumer demand and private choice—not government dictates—should shape business practices.
• Private Property Rights: Though the bill does not physically restrict the use of property, it significantly curtails how property—such as storefronts and signage—can be used for expressive and economic purposes. Limiting what kinds of signs and logos can be displayed on private business premises interferes with the owner’s control over their own property, especially in the absence of direct harm. This intrusion undermines the principle that property rights include not only the possession of physical space but also its lawful use.
• Limited Government: The bill’s use of criminal penalties (Class B misdemeanor) to enforce aesthetic and content-based advertising rules expands the scope of government into areas that could be better addressed through civil remedies or voluntary compliance. Rather than narrowly targeting proven harms or deceptive practices, the bill sets broad prohibitions that rely on the government’s interpretation of what constitutes "youth-appealing" imagery. This kind of regulatory overreach reflects a distrust in individuals and communities to self-regulate and solve problems without heavy-handed state intervention.