“2028 sounds far away. But artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.”

By Adrian A. Holguin, CannaShark Consulting

Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 2249, a bill that puts a much clearer line around what cannabis packaging, labels and ads can look like. The short version: no child-oriented dragons, unicorns or wizards; nobody who looks under 21; no imagery of candy, cereal, sweets or desserts primarily marketed to children; no child-style bubble or balloon lettering; and no packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to kids.

The new definition takes effect on January 1, 2028.

Most of the coverage stopped there, and I get it. “Rules take effect in sixteen months” doesn’t make anyone spill their coffee. But operators tend to call me after a rule costs more than they expected, so here’s why 2028 is not the date that matters.

First, the basics.

California has banned cannabis packaging that is “attractive to children” since legal sales began, and cartoons on labels are already prohibited. The problem was that the line remained subjective and was applied inconsistently. A 2025 state audit found that Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) rules were not specific enough and that reasonable reviewers sometimes reached different conclusions about similar packaging.

AB 2249 draws a clearer line. It defines “attractive to children” as designed or likely to appeal to anyone under 21, then identifies cartoons; depictions of people under 21; celebrities, influencers, characters and mascots primarily associated with contemporary children’s media or products; fantasy characters such as unicorns, wizards and dragons; imagery of candy, cereal, sweets and desserts primarily marketed to children; child-oriented bubble or balloon lettering; and packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to children.

Cartoon or overly stylized fruit on an edible or vape label is out. A realistic depiction of fruit that accurately reflects an ingredient or production region is allowed.

The bill also authorizes DCC to adopt additional rules for design elements or product characteristics that pose a heightened risk to children, and it requires the department to develop self-assessment resources.

DCC launched its AI-based Cannabis Product Image Analyzer in June. Use it as a screening tool, not a safe harbor: an automated result is advisory, not a final DCC determination.

AB 2249 sets no deadline for additional rulemaking or for the required resources, so operators are still designing against a target that could move.

Now here’s the part that got underplayed.

Packaging isn’t bought like office supplies. Many brands buy it in runs representing six months to a year of inventory because that is how they protect unit economics. Artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.

So play it forward. A brand placing a normal-sized packaging order in early 2027 may be buying stock it expects to use well into 2028. AB 2249 contains no express sell-through safe harbor for old packaging.

Unless DCC issues contrary guidance, the prudent plan is to assume that product offered for sale on January 1, 2028 must comply with the new definition. That may put the artwork deadline in late 2026. In other words, somebody has to decide now whether the mascot stays.

The California Cannabis Industry Association opposed the bill on cost, and that concern is real. A redesign can mean compliance review, new plates, minimum order quantities, retailer notifications and eventually paying someone to destroy old packaging. But the final Senate vote was 38-0, and the Assembly concurred 69-1.

The cost is now a scheduling problem, and scheduling problems are only cheap if you start early.

Handled on the front end, this is a calendar and a manageable cost. Handled on the back end, it becomes destroyed inventory, retailer disruption, potential enforcement and a bill with more zeros. The difference is almost never information. Operators knew the rule was coming. The problem is that “2028” sounds far away.

If you hold a California license, this quarter looks like this: pull every SKU and flag anything with a character, creature, candy cue, child-oriented lettering or stylized fruit. If you have to argue about whether the gummy bear is a cartoon, it probably is.

Get your printer’s real lead times in writing and work backward from January 1, 2028. Start the redesign conservatively, have the final art reviewed, and run it through DCC’s tool as a screen before the plates are cut. Then size your last old-look order to sell through before 2028.

Nobody should build a compliance plan around the hope that the state will be generous with a pallet of dragon gummies.

The state gave you sixteen months. Your printer gave you about six. Plan around the printer.

Adrian A. Holguin, J.D., M.B.A., is founder and president of CannaShark Consulting. He advises cannabis operators and businesses in other highly regulated industries on licensing, compliance, finance and operations, and also serves as an expert witness.

Photo courtesy of Max Pixel.

Source link

California’s governor has signed a bill to more clearly define the types of marijuana packaging and labeling that is prohibited due to appealing to children.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) gave final approval to the legislation from Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D) on Monday, about two weeks after it passed the Assembly in a vote of 69-1 and cleared the Senate 38-0.

“When voters legalized adult-use cannabis, they also made clear that California must protect children and ensure cannabis products are sold in a tightly regulated marketplace,” the governor said in a press release. “Today we are setting clearer, enforceable standards that protect kids, strengthen accountability, and give responsible businesses the certainty they need to follow the rules.”

As enacted into law, AB 2249 defines “attractive to children” to mean designed or likely to appeal to people under the age of 21.

Indications for that youth appeal include the use of cartoons, depictions of individuals who appear to be under 21, use of mythological creatures like unicorns or dragons or references to celebrities or characters who are primarily associated with children’s entertainment.

It also includes images of consumable goods that are primarily marketed to children—such as candies, cereals, sweets and desserts—as well as the use of lettering styles resembling “overinflated bubbles or balloons” that are typical in products marketed to kids.

“Cannabis and cannabis product packaging and labeling shall not imitate, mimic, or closely resemble the packaging, labeling, trade dress, or overall appearance of a non-cannabis product that is primarily marketed to children,” the legislation says.

While the new law says that “edible cannabis product or vape cartridge labeling shall not include cartoon or overly stylized depictions of fruit,” one provision clarifies that “realistic depictions of fruit used to identify or accurately depict the product ingredients or production region are not prohibited.”

The packaging and labeling restrictions are set to take effect on January 1, 2028 now that the measure has been enacted into law.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Under the legislation, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) is directed to adopt regulations to “address additional packaging and labeling design elements or product characteristics that pose heightened risk to children.”

DCC will also be required to develop “compliance assessment resources” to help cannabis businesses self-evaluate whether their packaging and labeling at attractive to children.

In June, the department rolled out a new AI tool to help businesses identify marijuana product packaging may appeal to kids in violation of existing state rules, which already ban cartoons on cannabis labels.

Irwin, the bill’s sponsor, previously requested the California State Auditor to conduct an assessment of DCC’s enforcement of existing laws against marketing cannabis products to children.

That audit “confirmed what many have long recognized: California’s cannabis industry continues to package and market products in ways which are overtly attractive to children,” the lawmaker said.

“Since the passage of Proposition 64, child cannabis poisonings have increased dramatically. These exposures are often driven by cannabis product packaging that uses features which are explicitly attractive to children, leading children to consume the products unintentionally,” Irwin said. “Young children who accidentally consumer cannabis require poison control treatment consistently, and in many cases they can also expose their fellow elementary and middle school peers to cannabis.”

The California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), for its part, opposed the bill.

“AB 2249 would impose significant costs on the licensed businesses that already keep cannabis away from children, undermine the state’s efforts to bring consumers into the regulated market, and does not address safe at-home storage practices,” the trade association said.

The measure was amended by the Senate after initially clearing the Assembly, including by delaying its effective date, narrowing the definition of “attractive to children” and removing some requirements for regulators.

Meanwhile, lawmakers this session have also advanced legislation to allow marijuana retailers to offer drive-thru windows to serve customers.

California’s treasurer recently said the marijuana legalization law that voters approved a decade ago has been a “complete failure” and should be replaced with a new ballot initiative that prioritizes consumers and small businesses.

The vice chair of the state Senate Budget Committee has floated the idea of putting a new initiative on the state ballot to “reverse” Proposition 64, for example, arguing that voters were misled and voicing concerns about the health impacts of marijuana use.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, recently told Marijuana Moment that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.”

DCC recently released data showing how 97 percent of state cannabis enforcement actions in unincorporated cities have happened in counties that have locally banned licensed growers from operating.

California regulators also recently adopted emergency rules changes for the state’s marijuana licensing process that are intended to make it easier for businesses to qualify for benefits in line with the Trump administration’s recent move to federally reschedule medical cannabis.

Newsom recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis.

Last October, however, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics.

Last September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Separately, the state attorney general says Indian tribes cannot independently engage in marijuana commerce with licensed cannabis businesses without first obtaining their own commercial license from state officials.

California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Source link