Michigan cannabis regulators have, for the first time, issued a suspension of a hemp business license over excessive THC levels. The Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) last week said it had suspended the license of Loud Labs of Michigan LLC after an investigation found the company possessed products containing delta-9 THC beyond the state’s legal hemp threshold of 0.3%. 

CRA staff conducted a compliance inspection at the business on March 25, during which the inspectors observed multiple cannabis products and reviewed certificates of analysis indicating that certain products contained delta-9 THC that exceeded hemp threshold. The agency conducted an inventory audit on May 18 and identified multiple products for which corresponding laboratory certificates of analysis reported delta-9 THC concentrations above 0.3%.  

The agency’s report points out five products in particular, including a concentrate with a reported delta-9 THC level of 92.84%; another with a concentration of 21.38%; and a third with a concentration of 20.35%. Two topical patches were also found to have THC levels in violation of state hemp laws – one tested at 0.59%, and another tested at 0.45%, according to the notice of suspension. 

The CRA alleges that Loud Labs violated parts of the state’s Industrial Hemp Research and Development Act (IHRDA), which provides for suspension of a processor-handler license when the licensee intentionally possesses cannabis containing more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. Based on those allegations, the agency suspended Loud Labs’ hemp processor-handler license effective immediately and has also provided notice of its intent to revoke the license.  

Under the applicable provisions of the IHRDA, a license must be revoked if, following notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the CRA determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the licensee violated the relevant provision.   

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

“The practical question isn’t whether this is something to celebrate, it’s whether your business is positioned to be a consolidator, an attractive acquisition target or something different.”

By Christopher B. Lynch, Dickinson Wright PLLC

There are a lot of rumors and misinformation out there about what the April 23 federal marijuana rescheduling order means. Some will tell you a story about legalization finally arriving. Others will tell you that not much is changing. But if you look closely, there’s another interesting story emerging: one of careful planning, swift action and targeted consolidation.

Since Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche moved Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, the businesses that I think are best positioned to take advantage of rescheduling aren’t popping champagne—they’re positioning themselves to take advantage of new first-mover opportunities.

That, more than any headline about “federal legalization,” is the real story of rescheduling’s first year: not a national market opening overnight, but a faster, harder sorting of who survives in the one we already have.

NewLake Capital Partners CEO Anthony Coniglio put it well: “Each year brings predictions of a major M&A wave in cannabis. And so far, each year has mostly delivered tuck-in deals rather than transformative consolidation.”

We’re seeing deals that are smaller, more frequent and often faster with less diligence. Two months after Blanche’s order, the Department of Justice opened an expedited administrative hearing to consider rescheduling marijuana in full, including adult-use. That hearing has now concluded, and a recommendation could come at any time.

But for license holders and investors making decisions today, the more immediate question isn’t when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and DOJ finish the bigger rulemaking. It’s whether their business is built to be an acquirer, an acquisition target or neither, in a race that’s already started.

What the order actually does

The April order reclassified medical marijuana that is FDA-approved or state-licensed, moving it out of Schedule I—reserved for drugs deemed to have no accepted medical use —and into Schedule III, the category for substances with accepted medical use and an abuse potential lower than Schedule I or II drugs. Blanche limited the order to medical products, citing U.S. international drug treaty obligations as the reason adult-use marijuana stayed on Schedule I.

Licensed operators got a 60-day window to opt into a priority DEA registration pathway.

Many took advantage of that pathway, and we’re seeing some of the results: in June, Trulieve restructured to separate its 206 DEA-registered medical dispensaries from its adult-use business and became the first U.S. cannabis company to list on the New York Stock Exchange proof that registration can be a path to markets and resources this industry has been shut out of for a decade.

Tax relief under Section 280E—which prevents deductions for operations that sell Schedule I and II drugs—is the clearest near-term benefit of registration, but there are arguments for federal trademark protection and other prospective benefits.

Where the broader rescheduling case stands today

The bigger question of full rescheduling was the subject of DOJ’s separate administrative hearing, which ran from June 29 through July 15. Final briefs were filed August 19, and Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius is now finalizing the record ahead of a recommendation.

That recommendation won’t be law; it goes to DEA Administrator Terrance Cole, who, together with Blanche, will decide whether to issue a final rule. There’s no statutory deadline to rely on, so there could be an update next week or next year—and that’s assuming none of the legal challenges cause further delay.

What began as a single petition challenging the rescheduling move by Smart Approaches to Marijuana has become three consolidated lawsuits in the D.C. Circuit, plus a coalition of doctors, activists and the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska (Louisiana has since withdrawn).

And if you need proof that of the value of the opportunities that rescheduling can bring, just look to the claims by MMJ International Holdings, which argues it now faces competitors reaching Schedule III for free after it spent years (and significant capital) pursuing FDA approval the traditional way to get a market advantage.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits have asked the court to stay the order while the case proceeds. The DOJ opposed that, and plaintiffs filed their reply on July 17. Two operators, MedPharm Iowa and Tri-Mountain Pure, have since moved to intervene in defense of the order.

A ruling granting a stay could freeze DEA registrations and potentially suspend benefits that operators are banking on.

Why “rescheduled” doesn’t necessarily mean “legalized”

If you operate under a state medical marijuana license, hold dual medical and adult-use authorizations or are evaluating an investment in this industry, treat this moment as the start of a compliance project, not the arrival of a legalized market—we still have many more questions than answers.

State law compounds this, since no two states built their systems alike. The right strategy in Maryland may be wrong in Michigan or Washington, and the ground could shift again fast if the D.C. Circuit grants a stay, or if the ALJ’s recommendation or the eventual final rule reshapes the framework.

Some states could tie state licensure to DEA registration—Oklahoma already has, telling license holders to get DEA registration or risk losing their state permits next year.

Layer on top of all that new DEA regulation of license holders, which could mean on-demand facility access and inspection authority, DEA security requirements, mandatory disclosure of employees’ Social Security numbers and potential exposure for co-located medical and adult-use businesses.

This industry could look very different twelve months from now.

Striving for pole position

Rescheduling alone isn’t going to turn leaden cannabis equities into gold overnight, and I don’t think institutional capital is going to dive into the market immediately—that still requires congressional legislation such as the SAFER Banking Act and operators with the earnings and balance sheets to earn institutional trust.

But in the meantime, rescheduling is drawing interest from pharmaceutical, agricultural and consumer products companies that stayed on the sidelines while marijuana sat on Schedule I and well-positioned operators are already using this window to plan restructurings, seek new partners, acquire distressed assets and target new markets.

This is a genuinely significant moment in the fifty-year history of federal cannabis policy, and one that I think will reward careful, jurisdiction-specific planning and analysis.

The practical question isn’t whether this is something to celebrate, it’s whether your business is positioned to be a consolidator, an attractive acquisition target or something different, and the race for pole position is already underway.

As the smoke clears on rescheduling, start preparing now to take advantage of the opportunity.

Christopher B. Lynch is a Member in Dickinson Wright PLLC’s Seattle office, where he practices in the firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions and Cannabis Law groups.

Photo by Kyle Jaeger.

Source link

“We already got our raises. Our [personal time off] is taking effect. Bonuses have been handed out…and job security is in place.”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

It’s been nearly a month since Key Cannabis Dispensary employees in Springfield ratified their first collective bargaining agreement that includes wage increases, bonuses and additional time off to workers.

And employees are feeling pretty high.

“Now that the contract has been ratified, we’re rocking and rolling already,” said Sally Powell, a retail associate at Key Cannabis Dispensary. “We already got our raises. Our [personal time off] is taking effect. Bonuses have been handed out…and job security is in place.”

Powell was among the employees who in 2022 voted 6-3 to unionize, under the representation of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 2.

The agreement is a milestone in Missouri’s still-young marijuana industry, where dispensaries have proliferated since recreational sales began in 2023 but organized labor has made only limited inroads. The Springfield workers are just the second group of cannabis employees in the state to secure a union contract, and their four-year path to one offers a glimpse at how difficult it can be to turn a successful organizing vote into tangible workplace protections.

The delay was partly because the previous owners, Bloom Medicinal, sold the dispensary in January 2024 to Elevate Cannabis.

Nico Pento, chief legal officer for Elevate Cannabis, said it was a unique situation because the company was “thrown into the middle” of the unionization process, as part of its acquisition of a few facilities from Bloom.

“A lot of what we settled on is not much different than what we do as an organization,” Pento said. “But, I respect the right of everybody to want to be represented by a union if they so choose. I’m happy we could come to an amicable agreement.”

While the company has a merit increase system in wages, Pento said this store’s employees were on a hiring freeze during the lengthy collective bargaining process.

“We needed to get through the entire [collective bargaining agreement] negotiations before we could make any adjustments to compensation,” Pento said, “so the increases that we gave them were really more of a true-up to get them to where we felt they would have been had they not chosen to unionize.”

The ratification bonus was similarly something the company decided was the “right thing to do,” he said.

“They had gone over two years without getting a wage increase,” he said, “so we wanted to find a way to properly compensate them for that kind of two-year delay.”

Powell said the contract creates more stable scheduling and clearer disciplinary guidelines. One of the most important provisions for Powell were the non-discrimination, anti-harassment and inclusion protections.

“With the cannabis industry just being a super inclusive industry as is,” she said, “it’s nice to just have some extra language to protect that. Being gay myself, we have quite a few gender-fluid people in our facility. It’s just been great to be able to be your true self and not have to worry about who you are.”

Elevate Cannabis is owned by a group of family and friends based out of the Kansas city area, he said, and the company has 14 dispensaries and two manufacturing and cultivation facilities. It is among the largest cannabis companies in Missouri.

Another reason it took so a long time to get a union contract ratified, Pento said, is because the labor negotiation process “is definitely a little old school.”

“Everything is in person,” he said. “You’re trading drafts back and forth in person. It’s not like a typical, you know, sale or acquisition where you’re exchanging red lines and can bang it out in a couple weeks.”

However, Pento commended the union representative, Saul Guerrero, for being reasonable and easy to communicate with.

Chad Price, UFCW Local 2 director of collective bargaining and retail servicing, praised the workers for their hard work and dedication.

“We want to welcome them to our union family,” Price said. “Together, we will continue building contracts that improve lives and strengthen our workplaces for years to come.”

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Source link

“Defendants are free to implement the law as they see fit, including accepting applications, holding a lottery, and issuing adult-use recreational and social equity cannabis licenses.”

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

A federal court order that blocked Rhode Island regulators from awarding cannabis retail licenses is now lifted, clearing the way for a new application process already underway.

U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose on Friday dissolved the preliminary injunction she issued against the Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission on April 8 now that the state’s 2022 Cannabis Act Act no longer requires all retail license holders to be majority-owned by Rhode Island residents.

“Defendants are free to implement the law as they see fit, including accepting applications, holding a lottery, and issuing adult-use recreational and social equity cannabis licenses,” DuBose, a Biden appointee, wrote.

DuBose indicated in a July 22 order she would grant the state’s motion to dissolve the April ruling once the three lawsuits challenging Rhode Island’s residency requirements were kicked down from Boston’s appellate court, which happened August 11.

Under the new law signed by Gov. Dan McKee (D) on June 10, applicants are defined as a person or a business who has “made an application for issuance of a license or certificate to own or engage in a cannabis business.”

The amended Cannabis Act voided the original application process, and the Cannabis Control Commission opened a new one on August 7. Online submissions for the state’s three license types will be accepted through Monday, November 23.

“The General Assembly’s passage of SB 3313 removed provisions deemed likely to violate the Constitution and because of that, the controversy at issue in the preliminary injunction is no  longer immediate or real,” DuBose wrote.

The legal challenges began in May 2024, when California cannabis entrepreneur Justyna Jensen sued the Cannabis Control Commission in U.S. District Court in Providence, arguing Rhode Island’s residency requirement for licenses under the original Cannabis Act violated interstate commerce protection. That same month, Florida resident John Kenney filed a second federal lawsuit against the commission objecting to the residency requirement. A California resident filed a third lawsuit on similar grounds on November 24, 2025.

DuBose initially dismissed the complaints in February 2025 since two were filed before the commission enacted the state’s inaugural cannabis regulations in May 2025. But the cases were revived in December by Boston’s federal appeals court, which demanded DuBose rule based on the merits of the cases.

Her April ruling barred the Cannabis Control Commission from holding a lottery to award licenses and reviewing the 97 license applications submitted for 20 new retail cannabis licenses.

Because of the state’s recent changes, regulators filed a motion in late June to dissolve DuBose’s preliminary injunction arguing the complaints against the residency requirement were moot.

Kenney and his attorneys supported the state’s request. Jensen and her legal team opposed it, claiming the new law still disadvantaged out-of-state applicants because they would have to secure property in Rhode Island on a short timeline in order to qualify for a retail license.

DuBose was unpersuaded by Jensen’s argument.

“She has had years, not months, to scour the Rhode Island market in search of a suitable property,” DuBose wrote in Friday’s ruling. “She has also had at least four months to search for property since this court entered its injunction.”

Jeffrey Jensen, Justyna’s husband and attorney, did not immediately respond to request for comment Monday.

Charon Rose, spokesperson for the Cannabis Control Commission, said the agency welcomed DuBose’s decision to dissolve the injunction but declined to comment further amid the ongoing litigation.

No applications for adult-use retail licenses have been submitted as of Monday afternoon, Rose confirmed in an email. The commission has received 32 interest forms from prospective social equity applicants, with 13 applying for initial screening for the license type reserved for people adversely affected by the war on drugs.

Social equity businesses must be majority owned by one or more people who can show they were disproportionately impacted by criminal enforcement of past prohibitions, including being arrested or having a family member who was.

The certification process will remain open through September 11.

This story was first published by Rhode Island Current.

Source link

Traditional business consulting is well-suited to traditional businesses. After all, they’ve evolved hand in hand for more than a century. Heavily regulated cannabis, however, is another story.

Launching a cannabis business and keeping it primed for growth quickly can prove overwhelming. There are so many crucial systems to sort—supply chain logistics, manufacturing standard operating procedures, inventory management, human resources, payroll—and so little time to figure out what works best.

Mainstream business consultants have developed a one-size-fits-all structure that covers the basics, but cannabis consulting requires a more holistic approach to business operations. The industry has a uniquely wide variety of different regulations from state to state, not to mention an ever-growing number of business services on offer.

It’s no secret businesses are willing to invest a lot of money in consultancies. The field generated about $132 billion worldwide in 2020 alone. This is because of a symbiotic relationship that has gradually developed between consultants and business executives since the nineteenth century, when scientific principles of ordered structure (think divisions and subdivisions) were first applied to business-management practices.

Over time, traditional business consulting became highly siloed, thanks in part to financial regulations put in place after the Great Depression and in part due to a mid-century shift away from recommending specific structures in favor of detailed strategies for every aspect of a business. Today, business consulting typically adds value for executives by giving them access to very specific knowledge and research.

In young, rapidly developing industries, however, founders may get the most benefit from a specialty-agnostic consultant. A holistic, results-based approach to business consulting links leadership to a wide variety of solutions that can be tailored to each company, saving both time and money.

What does holistic consulting mean? It means understanding the big picture. Cannabis regulations are extremely granular and varied between states, and businesses, particularly multistate operators, likewise vary in both structure and strategy.

For example, take the wildly different regulatory landscapes that exist in an established cannabis market like Washington state, which prohibits vertical integration of cultivation, processing, and retail operations, versus a newer market like New Mexico, where businesses holding a vertical-integration license have additional allowances such as the ability to seek a courier license.

Companies face a very different set of challenges and opportunities depending on whether they operate in medical and/or recreational markets. Even different business models present diverse considerations. Regulatory programs impact how much a company controls its supply chain or has the ability to branch into delivery services, for example, creating different day-to-day operations and company structures.

A truly agnostic consultancy familiar with which services and solutions are available in each region will offer more value than a consultant limited to a particular framework or limited stable of vendors. A more versatile approach also allows consultants to make room for the nuances of the industry, acknowledging how fast regulations can change and trends like delivery can take hold.

Another reason founders would be wise to seek out consultants with a results-based approach is to protect their balance sheets. New businesses require a wide range of services and technology solutions through startup and expansion, and these quickly can accrue up a lot of billable hours—particularly when you factor in the bespoke nature of the consulting work involved.

A consultancy that bases its billing on results (or charges vendors instead of the consulting client) can help nascent companies conserve investment dollars as they navigate licensing hurdles and rapid industry pivots. Results-based billing also incentivizes the service provider to offer an effective, top-quality product and promotes long-term success versus a short-term project based on billable hours.

Together, agnosticism and results-based billing structures add up to greater efficiency. In an industry capable of generating huge profits but still vulnerable to fluctuations in wholesale flower prices, heavy taxation, supply gluts, and competition from the illicit market, that efficiency is good news for the bottom line.

Traditional consulting may indeed be an adequate fit for more established business sectors where solutions are more universally transferable, but too many cannabis founders have found themselves playing the telephone game with multiple consultants, spending precious hours evaluating dozens of different service options from accounting to HR to point-of-sale. It’s time to disrupt the structure and strategy of consulting itself for a more holistic, results-based philosophy.

Brian Mayfield and Adam Benko are cofounders of MJstack, a software-as-a-service and operations consultancy that combines institutional knowledge of mature and emerging markets with enterprise expertise. The company helps entrepreneurs avoid regulatory pitfalls and operational headaches so they can focus on growing their business.

Source link

“Our focus is to maintain that momentum by implementing the amended Cannabis Act as efficiently as possible.”

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Rhode Island’s Cannabis Control Commission on Friday reopened the application process for prospective retailers after regulators’ first attempt to license more pot shops was halted by a federal court order and voided under a new state law.

Gov. Dan McKee (D) on June 10 signed a pair of bills that undo a provision in the original 2022 Rhode Island Cannabis Act that required cannabis retailers be majority-owned by Rhode Island residents, along with kickstarting a new application process within 60 days.

They’re changes the state made in order to resolve the trio of federal lawsuits that led to U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose blocking the Cannabis Control Commission from holding the lottery it was planning to hold in May to award licenses.

DuBose also stopped regulators from continuing to screen and review any of the 97 retail license applications submitted by the original December 29, 2025, deadline.

“Our focus is to maintain that momentum by implementing the amended Cannabis Act as efficiently as possible,” Michelle Reddish, chairperson of the three-member regulatory panel, said in a statement Thursday.

Online submissions for the state’s three license types will be accepted through Monday, November 23. Prospective retailers seeking a social equity license, reserved for those adversely affected by the war on drugs, must first receive certification by September 11.

The commission’s announcement did not include a timeline for regulators to review applicants nor say when licenses would be awarded.

The revised law requires social equity businesses to be majority owned by one or more people who can show they were disproportionately impacted by criminal enforcement of past prohibitions, including being arrested or having a family member who was.

Under the 2022 act that legalized recreational cannabis, the commission can offer 24 new licenses to retailers, with six reserved for social equity applicants and another six reserved for worker-owned cooperatives. But not every license type received an application in each of the six geographic zones during the first go, which left regulators with a maximum of 20 licenses to issue across the state.

As it stands, nine shops are selling recreational cannabis in Rhode Island under hybrid retail-medicinal licenses grandfathered in from the state’s medical marijuana program.

The halt in the state’s first application pool left many would-be business owners continuing to pay rent on storefronts they may not even be able to open. Though they can’t recoup their property costs, the new state law allows those initial applicants to be refunded any fees paid to the commission.

All prospective retailers were required to pay an application fee of $7,500 and a yearly $30,000 licensing fee. Fees were waived for the first year for approved social equity applicants.

Over half of all applicants—56—sought general retail licenses. Another 19 were worker cooperatives while the remaining 23 were for social equity applicants.

Charon Rose, spokesperson for the Cannabis Control Commission, said in an email Friday that refund checks are expected to be issued on a rolling basis beginning next week. She did not state how many of the 75 applicants who paid the original application fee sought refunds.

This story was first published by Rhode Island Current.

Source link

“Verano did not want any of these terms. Had it been free to do so, it would not have accepted any of them. In fact, it would have signed no [labor peace agreement] at all.”

By Sophie Nieto-Muñoz, New Jersey Monitor

New Jersey’s mandate that cannabis companies must sign agreements with labor unions is facing another legal challenge from one of the industry’s largest operators.

Verano, which runs four ZenLeaf dispensaries in New Jersey, is suing the state’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission, arguing the state can’t force it to sign what’s called a labor peace agreement with a union. Verano’s labor peace agreements require it to remain neutral when it comes to union organizing and bar Verano from making negative statements about the union, among other things.

The state’s cannabis regulation law requires cannabis companies to maintain these agreements to obtain and keep a license to sell cannabis. Verano’s lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in New Jersey, alleges this violates the National Labor Relations Act.

“Verano did not want any of these terms,” the complaint states. “Had it been free to do so, it would not have accepted any of them. In fact, it would have signed no [labor peace agreement] at all.”

Verano notes in the complaint that the commission has a history of enforcing the agreement condition and will dole out civil penalties when companies don’t comply. The commission fined Curaleaf, a major competitor of Verano, $610,000 in 2025 for failing to maintain its labor peace agreement.

Verano said if it loses its license, it will be forced out of business, forced to fire its workers, and “sacrifice its accumulated goodwill in the local market.”

The company holds licenses for dispensaries in Elizabeth, Lawrence Township, Neptune Township and Mount Holly, plus a cultivation and processing facility in Branchburg, with a total staff of about 300. The Neptune license was up for renewal August 1, with Mount Holly’s renewal coming up in November.

Verano’s labor peace agreement is with Local 360 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

Verano is asking a judge to declare that the labor peace mandate can’t be used as grounds to deny, suspend, revoke or refuse renewal of its licenses, and that its agreements with Local 360 are voidable, which would allow the company to walk away from the union relationship.

Spokespeople for the union, which is named as a defendant in Verano’s lawsuit, and for the Cannabis Regulatory Commission did not respond to requests for comment. The commission is scheduled to meet for a public meeting on Thursday.

Verano’s lawsuit relies heavily on a recent decision in Curaleaf’s legal challenge to labor peace agreements. In that case, a federal judge in May denied the Cannabis Regulatory Commission’s move to dismiss Curaleaf’s lawsuit and said labor peace agreements are preempted by federal law.

Verano argued its agreements with the union should now be considered void, claiming that both sides signed them under the belief that it was required under law, that Verano only signed under “illegitimate coercion,” and that the agreement’s entire purpose—regulatory compliance—no longer exists because of the ruling in the Curaleaf case.

New Jersey started requiring these agreements in 2018, when the state Department of Health began scoring cannabis license applications and awarded 30 points to companies that signed one, which effectively made the agreement a necessity. It was later written into the state’s cannabis law, which led to recreational dispensaries opening their doors in April 2022.

This story was first published by New Jersey Monitor.

Source link

In November 2020, several states across the country put forth ballot initiatives aimed at decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis, and all of them passed. Arizona and New Jersey voters opted to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use. South Dakota voted to legalize both medicinal and recreational use. And as recently as March 31, New York passed legislation making it legal for individuals 21 and older to possess and purchase up to three ounces of marijuana.

Capping a decade of sweeping reforms, sixteen states — along with the District of Columbia — have legalized recreational cannabis and thirty-six states permit medicinal use.

Nevertheless, the insurance industry continues to struggle with the swift pace of legalization, largely due to myriad state laws that conflict with the federal government’s official position on the production, possession, and consumption of cannabis. What’s more, the particulars of individual state laws are anything but uniform, and what is considered legal in one state may be unlawful in another — even if they both allow some degree of possession or consumption.

This has left many within the cannabis industry adrift in an uncertain insurance landscape that sometimes raises more questions than it answers.

“I think the primary concern cannabis retailers like us have regarding insurance is finding an affordable carrier who provides comprehensive policies with standard coverages,” said Shea Hynes, general manager and co-founder at Seattle-based Lux Pot Shop. “Beyond that there are concerns about how a company can maintain affordable insurance, or insurance at all, if something does arise that is a flag to carriers or if the company has to make a claim. Since cannabis is still federally illegal, it creates an environment where having a relationship with an experienced insurance broker can make all the difference in rates and coverage.”

According to a July 2020 report, legal cannabis sales are projected to increase from $15 billion to as much as $37 billion by 2024. But despite the positive momentum and bullish economic indicators, cannabis-related businesses (CRBs) face a substantial problem functioning as legitimate retail operations when it comes to cannabis business insurance, as insurers remain reluctant to write policies aimed at protecting CRBs from all manner of financial losses, including fire, theft, vandalism, and product liability.

“Cannabis stores have been continued targets of robberies, particularly with the rise of mask-wearing, and this creates a unique set of challenges when thinking about insurance,” Hynes said.

Internal and external risks

According to industry experts and analysts, the CRB insurance quandary comprises several influencing factors, the most obvious being the conflict between states that have legalized cannabis and current federal law, which still considers marijuana an illegal Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning the substance has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” According to attorney Meghana Shah, partner at Eversheds Sutherland LLP and co-founder of the firm’s cannabis industry team, this conflict could expose marijuana businesses and their ancillary service providers (such as insurers) to federal criminal liability.

“Business owners and insurers alike remain concerned about the risks associated with doing business in the cannabis industry,” said Shah. “For cannabis-related businesses, the inability to secure insurance denies them a vital service, rendering them unable to protect themselves against common business risks, some of which have the potential to irreversibly cripple their business.”

According to Texas-based insurance agent Nick Schrader, the insurance industry recognizes the cannabis industry comprises numerous hazards and brings massive potential liabilities to CRB entrepreneurs if marijuana is transported carelessly or without proper security.

“The hazards in this industry are uncontrollable,” Schrader said. “Unfortunately, there are only limited companies that offer insurance for this industry. Most do not give enough insurance coverage that can support the business needs thoroughly, making the searching and decision-making much more difficult. You have to assess everything, be extra safe, and go for the insurance company that can give you the best possible coverage you need.”

Even if you’re not a cultivator or manufacturer, the process of obtaining affordable and adequate insurance can be “a near nightmare,” said Scott Jennings, chief executive officer at California-based Pantry Food Co., which specializes in infused cuisine.

“As a cannabis brand, we thankfully don’t have to juggle the insurance hassles that cultivators or manufacturers do,” he said. “We do, however, carry cannabis product liability insurance—or PLI—because we have products. So, if anyone were to get sick after consuming something from Pantry, we’d be protected from lawsuits.

“Insurance companies don’t want to work with cannabis businesses… Thankfully, there are cannabis-specific insurance companies like CannGenn and Cannasure,” Jennings continued. “If you’re new to the industry, and even if you aren’t, please consult a lawyer. Because we are handling a controlled substance according to the government, maintaining compliance is 100 times more crucial in this space.”

Cannabis compliance is going to be costly, according to Majda Baltic, an independent broker and owner of Majdas Touch Insurance. “The biggest challenge with obtaining cannabis insurance of any kind—whether it’s for manufacturing of products, cultivating, or growing—is that there are only a limited number of insurance companies available at this time to service the industry,” she said. “This means increased premiums due to this product still falling under a specialty market. It will likely remain like this for years to come.”

Types of insurance

Nonetheless, Baltic said obtaining a general liability policy should be of primary concern for anyone operating within the cannabis industry.

“On top of liability insurance, it’s important to protect the crop or product—meaning you also need business property protection,” Baltic said. “When farming, policies become a little more complicated as the life of the crop becomes a huge risk with weather events, in general, being unpredictable. Pricing for growing crops is different from manufacturing products, as other risks are at hand in those activities.”

For example, when manufacturing cannabis goods such as oils, creams, edibles, or cartridges, there are dozens of different methods in place to extract THC and CBD from the crop, each carrying a different rating risk factor. The higher the risk, the higher the premium.

“There is always a huge risk in being underinsured, but that is with any product ranging from personal auto all the way to commercial lines and excess and surplus, such as cannabis industry insurance products,” said Baltic. “It’s always better to be over-insured than underinsured.”

This can get particularly tricky for those trying to calculate crop insurance, said Marianne Cursetjee, co-founder at Alibi Cannabis in Oregon. “At Alibi Cannabis, we developed a calculation based on total days in production and then applied the percent of days remaining multiplied by the replacement value,” said Cursetjee. “It’s important to consider all the risks in a cultivation facility and implement either engineering or insurance to reduce potential losses. Losses can be catastrophic whether from wildfire, equipment failure, unstable plant genetics, or theft. This industry is very risky, so minimizing potential losses is important for us.”

Federal help on the way?

Help may be on the way in the form of federal legislation introduced in Congress in March that would open the door to insurers who want to cover CRBs without the looming threat of federal penalties. According to the insurance industry publication Business Insurance, the Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana (CLAIM) Act of 2021 aims to “create a safe harbor for insurers engaging in the business of insurance in connection with a cannabis-related legitimate business, and for other purposes.”

The legislation has broad bipartisan support and, according to Business Insurance, “is the first of what should be several steps to provide a federal regulatory framework for the cannabis industry, which could include oversight and regulation, such as the Food and Drug Administration overseeing quality and compliance with cannabis edibles.”

“Current federal law prevents these small business owners from getting insurance coverage, and without it they can’t protect their property, employees, or customers,” said Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), sponsor of the bill. “Our legislation simply levels the playing field for legal cannabis businesses, allowing them to fully operate just as any other legal small business would by permitting insurance companies to provide coverage to these enterprises without risk of federal prosecution or other unintended consequences.”

According to CRB experts, CLAIM is sorely needed right now. But they also recognize it won’t be an overnight fix to the insurance problems currently faced by cannabis business owners—and the problems are legion.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), only six insurers currently offer cannabis coverage. What’s more, due to federal laws “insurers and brokers do not formally advertise their services to CRBs. Instead, most CRB owners hear about insurance options through word of mouth in the cannabis community.” Finally, the NAIC said there is the substantial issue of inadequate policy limits on coverage. “Currently, most insurers are offering $1 million per occurrence/$2 million aggregate policies in commercial and general liability, property damage, and product liability coverage,” stated the NAIC. “However, insureds may need limits up to $5 [million] and $10 million or more.”

“Things are definitely going to look different in a few more years, but right now so many marijuana business owners are working without a harness or safety net,” said Anthony Bonfiglio, a Colorado-based lawyer who specializes in cannabis law. “That means they have to be fearful of everything from crop fires to business theft, liability, or vandalism. It’s a stress that no other industry has to bear, and it’s unsustainable in the long term.”

Nick DiUlio is an analyst for InsuranceQuotes.com, which publishes in-depth studies, data, and analysis related to auto, home, health, life, and business insurance. DiUlio studies the insurance industry in order to author editorial content that provides trusted tips, advice, and insights for consumers.

Source link

“We just want a fair shot. We’re not asking for anything special, no special privileges, but what they promised from the very beginning.”

By Hannah Meisel, Capitol News Illinois

Nearly seven years after Illinois lawmakers approved recreational cannabis legalization, applicants who lost out on coveted business licenses are still battling the state in court, alleging the law’s rollout undermined its purported equity goals.

At the time of its passage in 2019, supporters of Illinois’s landmark law touted it as the most equity-centric legalized cannabis program in the nation. But one of the centerpieces of that legislation—setting aside the majority of cannabis business licenses for “social equity” applicants disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs—proved more complicated than the law’s authors had imagined, setting off years of litigation over the process.

The final lawsuit of dozens filed following the first cannabis licensing lottery in 2020 finally got its day in court last week, marking the conclusion of a yearslong legal saga testing the state’s legalization policy. But it’s also the last chance for the plaintiff, Well-Being Holistic Group, to have an opportunity for a dispensary license after all four of its applications lost in three lotteries.

“We just want a fair shot,” the Rev. Otis Davis, said after a hearing in the case. “We’re not asking for anything special, no special privileges, but what they promised from the very beginning… So we just saying, ‘Hey, that the system is broken, then they should redo it, and they should give everybody a chance.’”

Davis preaches at Repairers of the Breach Ministries in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood and unsuccessfully ran for Chicago City Council in 2019. He was part of the team that applied for dispensary licenses as Well-Being Holistic Group in 2020. Chris Harris, an attorney who’d represented Davis, teamed up with his client along with Harris’ friend and business partner David Roberts to submit the applications.

Harris was blunt in his assessment of Davis’s value to the team: “Otis being a veteran, Otis being a practicing minister on the South Side of Chicago coming from a disproportionately impacted area—we had what we thought was a perfect team, and a team that was designed to win this type of license.”

In fact, Well-Being Holistic Group’s applications received perfect scores, but still didn’t win a license. While most lawsuits filed against the state after the lottery process were from applicants who disputed their scores for a chance to be included in the lottery, Well-Being’s case argues a different legal theory, which attorney Chris Carmichael of Henderson Parks said is the “most difficult path” of all the lawsuits.

Plaintiff alleges lotteries were rigged

Well-Being argues that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which operated the lotteries, improperly allowed roughly 450 ineligible entries into a lottery of 901 applicants for dispensary licenses in the Chicago region. That, Well-Being argues, nearly doubled the size of the pool and reduced others’ chances of winning.

Well-Being alleges the entries should have been flagged as ineligible because corporate dispensaries that already had a footprint in Illinois’s medical cannabis market had their fingerprints on applications for social equity dispensary licenses.

In one case, Carmichael said a company paid for roughly $500,000 in application fees—something IDFPR and the consultants hired to vet applicants and conduct the lotteries should have caught, as the “remitter” line on those cashier’s checks contained the name of the company.

IDFPR maintains it did its due diligence by checking out the individuals named as principal officers on the license applications, which the agency argues would have caught any attempts to flout application limits or hide true ownership of the entity behind an application.

But Well-Being argues vetting only individuals missed the forest for the trees, causing IDFPR to overlook dozens of applications having the same corporate sponsorship.

Alex Moe, a lawyer from the Illinois Attorney General’s office, told Cook County Judge Patrick Stanton that Well-Being was “missing that consultants were expected” to take part in the application process. There were no rules against those consultants paying for application fees either, he said, unless consultants had undisclosed financial interest in the entity applying for licenses.

Further, Moe said Well-Being’s theory of mathematical unfairness in the lotteries is fundamentally incorrect.

“Even if Well-Being is correct and half the applicants should not have been in there, it doesn’t change the outcome,” he said.

By following the “paper trail” created by the lottery, Moe said IDFPR recalculated what would have happened if the applications Well-Being allege should’ve been marked ineligible weren’t in the pool. Well-Being would have placed 126th out of 450, he said.

“That’s something we know with mathematical certainty—that Well-Being would not have received a winning drawing,” Moe said.

Corrective lottery?

But Carmichael pointed out that since the state has social equity cannabis dispensary licenses going unused, “the only possible meaningful thing to do is to run a corrective lottery.”

The state already ran corrective lotteries after initial litigation held up the license awarding process for a year. The first dispensaries owned by social equity license holders didn’t open until November 2022—nearly three years after the application process opened. As of January, only 64 percent of licensed social equity dispensaries were operational, according to an analysis by The Chicago Reporter.

Stanton, who pointed out multiple times during the hearing that IDFPR had wide latitude over interpreting state statute, said he understood Well-Being’s claims but seemed skeptical of its arguments that a court should step in and tell a state agency how to do its job.

“It sounds to me like…there was some vetting done before the lottery. Maybe not the level of vetting you think should’ve been done,” he told Carmichael. “You’re saying they didn’t do enough. And I feel like, ‘Okay, that’s sort of the decision of the department.’”

The judge said he would need more proof that IDFPR “didn’t follow statute” in order for judicial review to be warranted.

“They did something,” Stanton said of IDFPR. “Perhaps not enough. Applying the standards they did, it seems to me they caught what they should’ve caught.”

The judge is set to rule at a May 21 hearing.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

Source link

New York City may be known for its marquee lights and Broadway legends, but in early June, the spotlight belonged to cannabis—and one EGOT-winning icon who brought a dose of star power to the industry’s premier East Coast B2B event.

At the 2025 Cannabis Means Business Conference & Expo (CMB), Whoopi Goldberg stole the show. The actress, comedian, and entrepreneur introduced Whoop-Tea, her new line of infused beverages created in partnership with South Jersey-based Pure Genesis. Marketed as a “crisp blend” of iced tea, lemonade, and 10mg of hemp-derived THC, the drink represents Goldberg’s mission to create a wellness product rooted in decades of personal cannabis use.

“This is like having a cocktail—but without the alcohol,” Goldberg told a packed crowd during her fireside chat with CNBC’s Tim Seymour. “If you don’t want to drink alcohol but want a light buzz, this is your drink.” 

Her candid reflections, from managing pain and period cramps with cannabis to the systemic hurdles faced by Black women entrepreneurs, struck a chord in a hall filled with founders, investors, and aspiring moguls. “We’re not waiting for anyone,” she declared to cheers. “We are making it work for ourselves.”

Tech, Trends, and a Taste of the Future

The Javits Center buzzed with energy for two full days as CMB—formerly known as CWCBExpo—welcomed over 75 exhibitors, with a strong East Coast showing. From AI-powered packaging trackers to a joint-printing machine that drew more than a few Instagram stories, the expo floor was a laboratory of innovation. Panels touched on everything from international expansion to beverage infusion trends, with voices like Franny Tacy, Cynthia Salarizadeh, and Dr. Chanda Macias offering insight into the next frontier for cannabis branding and wellness.

The conference’s refreshed identity reflected the maturing cannabis marketplace: less flash, more function. And yet, the networking scene was anything but dull. Tuesday night’s rooftop NORML FORML set the tone with sweeping skyline views and policy conversations over cocktails. Wednesday’s O2Vape-sponsored yacht party offered a floating dancefloor and front-row seat to a smogless Manhattan sunset.

A Marketplace with Heart—and Momentum

CMB’s programming uplifted entrepreneurs at every stage. Cannabis & Tech Today’s own Editor-in-Chief, Charles Warner, led a workshop on AI’s transformative role in cannabis operations. Across panels, speakers urged pragmatism and adaptability in an industry increasingly defined by shifting regulations, cautious capital, and consumer demand for low-dose, reliable formats. Beverage sales alone are expected to top $3 billion by year’s end, according to Hype Magazine.

Yet amidst the market talk, CMB 2025 never lost its human thread. Thursday’s Women in Cannabis Entrepreneur Luncheon offered a platform for leaders like Kymberly “KymB” Byrnes, Degelis Tufts Pilla, and Faye Coleman to celebrate wins—and strategize for what’s next.

As the conference came to a close, one sentiment rang clear: Cannabis may mean business, but it’s personal too. Whether you’re launching a brand, lobbying for policy, or—like Whoopi—just tired of hiding what you love, the industry is carving space for more stories, more ownership, and more impact.

Source link