A newly released industry whitepaper is adding fresh perspective to California’s ongoing debate over cannabis packaging standards, as lawmakers continue scrutinizing whether current rules adequately prevent brands from appealing to minors.
The issue gained renewed attention following a recent Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) hearing tied to the California State Auditor’s 2025 findings that cannabis packaging in the state is “too attractive” to children.
A February 2026 whitepaper authored by Tiffany Devitt on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association (CaCOA) argues that the core problem is not widespread misconduct in the licensed market, but rather a lack of clear regulatory definitions which creates uncertainty for both businesses and regulators.
California law prohibits packaging that appeals to children, but the whitepaper notes that the state has never clearly defined how that standard should be applied in practice. The result, according to the report, is a compliance environment where similar products may receive different treatment depending on interpretation, timing, or jurisdiction.
To move the conversation from theory to evidence, CaCOA conducted a structured review of packaging from 162 of the most visible cannabis brands in California, drawing from top-selling products in licensed retail channels. The findings challenge the prevailing narrative that youth-oriented branding is widespread in the legal market.
According to the review summarized on page 9 of the report:
- 68% of brands were clearly compliant
- 22% fell into a gray area created by undefined terms
- 10% presented clear issues under existing rules
Importantly, the report found that the most overtly youth-appealing packaging, including direct knockoffs of popular candy brands and cartoon-style designs, was concentrated in illicit channels rather than among licensed operators.
From an industry standpoint, the concern is less about whether guardrails should exist and more about how ambiguity can drive unintended consequences. Without objective criteria, enforcement may drift toward subjective interpretation or legislative backlash, such as plain packaging mandates, which the report warns could undermine regulated market competitiveness without meaningfully reducing real-world youth exposure.
Instead, Devitt outlines a policy approach focused on precision rather than prohibition. Among the recommendations:
- Codifying guidance into enforceable regulation
- Defining high-risk design features such as mascots, anthropomorphism, and bubble-style fonts
- Distinguishing flavor descriptions from visual imitation of sweets
- Aligning enforcement upstream with manufacturers rather than retailers
The paper also proposes an optional pre-market packaging review process that could provide operators with binding compliance determinations before products reach shelves as a potential safe harbor mechanism in a market where branding decisions carry significant financial risk.
“The legal cannabis market has shown that it can operate responsibly when the rules are clear. The remaining task is to define the line clearly enough to protect children without undermining the regulated system California built to do exactly that.” – Tiffany Devitt
Other regulated cannabis markets have already wrestled with the issue of packaging that appeals to minors, with outcomes ranging from more nuanced rules and restrictions in several US states, to Canada’s nationwide adoption of plain packaging. As the policy debate continues in California, the direction chosen may determine not just how packaging is regulated, but how effectively the legal market can compete while maintaining public trust. The full whitepaper is available via the CaCOA website.
