In a move that highlights the discrepancy between state-level and federal regulations on hemp, the state of California has filed a lawsuit against several U.S. hemp brands claiming violations of the state’s Proposition 65 rules.
California Sues Multiple Hemp Companies Claiming State Law Violations
California US state law, legal system and justice concept with a 3D rendering of a gavel on Californian flag.
Full story continued below.
Advertisement
California is suing several hemp brands throughout the U.S. claiming violations of the state’s Proposition 65 rules, which require products “known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” to carry a “clear and reasonable” warning label. Although the 2018 Farm Bill effectively legalized hemp containing 0.3% THC or less at the federal level, in California’s legal system, delta-9 THC is considered a chemical “known to cause harm to the developing fetus” and having any amount present makes a product subject to the Prop 65 rules.
The state is also accusing the businesses of unfair practices for selling “inhalable hemp products,” which are prohibited under a 2021 law clarifying the state’s hemp rules. The lawsuit claims the companies sold inhalable hemp products through their websites to customers in California, violating state law.
“This complaint seeks to remedy the defendants’ illegal sale of inhalable hemp products and their failure to protect consumers from highly toxic chemicals that are present in all commercial hemp products and their failure to warn consumers about the risks these products pose,” the lawsuit states.
The companies targeted by the lawsuit include:
- Oregon-based G.E.T. Agriculture LTD
- Nevada-based Hempacco Company, Inc.
- California-based Cheef Holdings
- Wyoming-based IHF Online LLC
- New Mexico-based Eagle Moon Farm, LLC and EMH Wholesale
- Massachusetts-based Berkshire CBD
- Vermont-based Berkshire Farm Collective
In a conversation with Ganjapreneur, CEO of Hempacco Company, Inc. Sandro Piancone stated that the company does not sell products to California consumers and that the company was in full compliance with Prop 65.
The other brands named in the suit did not immediately respond to a request for comment but this article will be updated if and when they do. The companies face potential penalties of up to $1,000 for each sales violation, $2,500 per day for each violation of the Prop. 65 Warning law, and $2,500 for each violation of the state’s unfair practices law.
The lawsuit was filed on August 31 in the Superior Court of Alameda County. To view a copy of the filing, click here.
Get daily news insights in your inbox. Subscribe
End