Cannabis: In Focus

  • Cannabis Testing Companies Facing State Regulatory Scrutiny in Nevada and Florida
  • FDA Appoints Former State Cannabis Policy Regulator as New Cannabis Advisor
  • DOJ Responds to Florida Lawsuit Challenging Federal Regulations Regarding Firearm Purchases by Medical Cannabis Patients


Continue Reading Cannabis Legal Report­­ – Week of October 3, 2022

A California state appeals court affirmed a bong maker’s win in a suit alleging it violated California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its products expose them to marijuana smoke that could cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Prop. 65 is a California initiative approved by voters in 1986 and enacted into law as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act that same year. The law prohibits knowingly and intentionally causing exposure to substances, including cannabis smoke and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), that are known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm, without first providing a clear and reasonable warning. California maintains a list of substances that trigger Prop. 65 warnings. To comply with Prop. 65, businesses must provide consumers with a compliant warning, unless they can ensure that their product does not expose consumers to a listed substance at levels that may cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Plaintiff-appellant Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA) filed a private enforcement action against Sream, Inc. (Sream) on November 12, 2020, alleging Sream violated Prop. 65 when Sream failed to provide a warning that their water pipe products—more commonly known as bongs—exposed consumers to marijuana smoke. EHA’s enforcement action sought “injunctive relief against Sream, from manufacturing, importing, selling, and/or distributing the products without a clear and reasonable warning.”

Continue Reading California State Appeals Court Affirms Bong Maker’s Win in Prop. 65 Suit

California regulators have proposed new tailored Proposition 65 warnings for cannabis products. These proposals would create new warning requirements for such products sold to California consumers containing THC or exposing consumers to cannabis smoke and—taken together with other proposed regulations—indicate that the Proposition 65 landscape may see some significant changes in the coming months.

Read

Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that its fifth annual Food Litigation Year in Review, in coordination with the expansion of the firm’s practice, has been broadened and renamed the Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review. With this rebranding, we have featured a section on the latest cannabis litigation trends.
Continue Reading Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review 2020

On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused six individuals and their companies with securities fraud in connection with two cannabis-related businesses in California that raised $25 million in an unregistered securities offering. The SEC’s complaint was filed in the Central District of California and seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten

On July 22, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submitted draft enforcement guidance for cannabidiol (CBD) industry for review by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The draft guidance is not yet available.  No date or proposed deadline for producing a final policy, but this submission indicates that the FDA

Yesterday, the FDA belatedly released a report in its progress towards CBD enforcement, as required by Congress.

Although the report repeats the FDA’s concerns regarding CBD safety, and fails to offer a useful timeline for a reasonable regulatory pathway for the CBD market, it also affirms a desire for a nuanced “risk-based” approach to CBD

On the heels of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recent declarations regarding the safety of products containing cannabidiol (CBD), several companies have been hit with class action lawsuits alleging that that the company’s CBD-containing products are mislabeled and falsely advertised in violation of state law. Further class action litigation is expected given the