Cannabis Law Blog

News & Insights for Cannabis Law and Business

On January 25, 2021, the NLRB Division of Advice (“the Division”) released a memo that may indicate a change in the way workers engaged in cannabis activities are covered under federal labor law. Under the NLRA, the right to form and join a union is limited to employees. Agricultural laborers do not have that right under federal law. Despite the fact that many workers in the cannabis industry are often involved in the cultivation and harvesting of a crop, they have typically been considered employees rather than agricultural laborers under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”). This…
On December 9, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3797—The Medical Marijuana Research Act (the “Bill”), expanding access to cannabis for medical research purposes.  In so doing, a bipartisan majority of members of the House of Representatives agreed that, while proponents and opponents of cannabis legalization are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.…
On Friday, the United States House of Representatives voted to approve The Marijuana Opportunity and Expungement Act (MORE Act),[1] which would decriminalize cannabis. This vote marks the first time that a chamber of Congress voted on a standalone cannabis bill.  While the 228-164 vote passed mostly on party lines, 5 Republicans voted in support of the bill, and 6 Democrats voted against.…
When it comes to whether unions have a right to enter an employer’s premises over the employer’s objections, California’s law is the polar opposite of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the law in most other states.  In California, unions generally have special access rights that nonlabor parties do not have.  Unions are given preferential treatment because of the state’s union-friendly public policies.  For example, under Assembly Bill 1291 (AB 1291) (AB 1291) and California Business and Professions Code Section 26001(x), any company engaged in the cultivation, packaging, distribution or sale of cannabis products cannot be licensed…
This article is the second part of a two-part article which provides an overview of Texas cannabis-related legislation and regulations affecting Texas cannabis operators and consumers.  Part I[1] covered the State’s regulations for limited medical cannabis use and consumption. In this article, we will discuss the State’s hemp program for both consumable and non-consumable products.…
Even two weeks after Election Day, jurisdictions nationwide are riding high after a number of positive wins related to the possible systemic legalization of cannabis use nationwide.  As of November 3, 2020, the pendulum now undeniably swings in favor of cannabis, with medical cannabis legal in 33 states and recreational adult-use permitted in 12 states and Washington D.C.…
Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) – such as mediation and arbitration  – has long been an attractive alternative to litigating disputes in court, especially for parties hoping to arrive at a swift resolution.  Now, given the unprecedented backlog in California courts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as uncertainty related to re-initiation of jury trials, ADR may become an increasingly favorable option – particularly for those in the cannabis industry.  According to the 2019 Annual Report and Financial Statements published by American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), cannabis-related cases have seen more growth (225%) than any other category of AAA’s 9,737 business-to-business…
In Granny Purps v. County of Santa Cruz, the Sixth District Court of Appeal green-lit a medical cannabis cultivator’s ability to pursue damages – to the tune of potentially $3.5M – from the County of Santa Cruz when it determined the County cannot rely on zoning ordinance to seize the cultivator’s plants grown in violation of local regulation. Specifically, the Sixth District found that, while the County is not compelled to return seized property if the property is illegal, the local ordinance at issue “ultimately regulates land use within the County; it does not (nor could it) render illegal a…
The viability of California’s cannabis delivery businesses continues to hang in the balance as trial in the landmark litigation between the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) and over two dozen local municipalities was postponed at the eleventh hour. In her tentative ruling, issued the afternoon before the much-anticipated bench trial in County of Santa Cruz v. BCC (County of Fresno Super Court, Case No. 19CECG01224), Judge Rosemary McGuire questioned the ripeness of certain municipalities claims challenging implementation of California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 5416(d) (Regulation 5416(d)), which allows delivery of cannabis to any jurisdiction within the state.…
*This post originally appeared as an article in the August 2020 edition of Happi Magazine. Beauty companies, including those using CBD or hemp-derived components, face an uptick in alleged false-labeling class actions. Whether the actions are justified or vexatious, one thing is certain: they are expensive to defend. By keeping the following labeling-related litigation trends in mind when considering and reviewing product labels and marketing, beauty companies can, hopefully, avoid becoming a litigation target.…
On June 29, 2020, Colorado adopted a statewide social equity program (SEP) for permitting cannabis operators.[1]  More specifically, House Bill 20-1424 (HB 20-1424) “defines social equity licensees, and modifies and expands the marijuana accelerator program to make it available for social equity licensees and retail marijuana stores.”[2]  The new law enables a social equity licensee to participate in the state’s accelerator program, which, as managed by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, supports cannabis business development.[3]  Colorado’s accelerator licensing program, originally slated to go into effect July 1, 2020,[4] pairs…
On June 29, 2020, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published updated guidance intended to “enhance the availability of financial services” for the hemp industry (the Guidance).  Even though the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 legalized hemp[1] at the federal level, some banks have hesitated to provide financing to the hemp industry because they are uncertain of their obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or Anti-Money Laundering regulations (BSA/AML).  The Guidance was published to clarify those obligations, and follows closely on the new National Credit Union Administration guidance for federally-chartered credit unions issued on June 20, 2020. …
It would be an understatement to say that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted transactional activity for buyers and sellers across a range of industries, the hemp and cannabis merger and acquisition (“M&A”) space being no exception.  In particular, the current period of COVID-19 volatility in the hemp and cannabis space is marked by numerous consequential outcomes, namely: (1) a sharp decline in the number of deals; (2) decline in capital raises; and (3) overall decline in market valuations.…
As the novel coronavirus (COVID or COVID-19) continues to ravage the United States, the cannabis industry is feeling the pandemic’s negative impacts despite an initial spike in sales after cannabis operations were deemed essential under various state “stay-at-home” orders.[1]  This article details the most recent state-level responses activated in California and Illinois.…