In a significant legal development, the state of California has filed a lawsuit against multiple hemp companies for allegedly violating the state’s laws. The lawsuit claims that these companies have violated California’s Proposition 65 rules, which require products that are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity to carry a clear warning label. Although the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp at the federal level, the state of California considers delta-9 THC, a chemical present in hemp, to be harmful to the developing fetus. The lawsuit also accuses the companies of unfair practices for selling inhalable hemp products, which are prohibited under a recent state law. The companies face potential penalties for sales violations, violations of the Prop. 65 Warning law, and violations of the state’s unfair practices law.
California Sues Multiple Hemp Companies for Violating State Law
California has recently filed a lawsuit against multiple hemp companies, accusing them of violating state law. This lawsuit highlights the discrepancy between state and federal regulations on hemp and the challenges faced by companies operating in this industry.
Background on the discrepancy between state and federal regulations on hemp
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp containing 0.3% THC or less at the federal level. However, in California, delta-9 THC is considered a chemical that can cause harm to the developing fetus. This has led to a disparity in the regulations surrounding hemp between the state and federal levels.
California’s Proposition 65 rules and hemp products
California’s Proposition 65 rules require products known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity to carry a clear and reasonable warning label. Despite the federal legalization of hemp, any presence of delta-9 THC in hemp products makes them subject to these rules in California.
Accusations of unfair practices for selling inhalable hemp products
In addition to the violation of Proposition 65 rules, the state is accusing the hemp companies of unfair practices for selling inhalable hemp products. A 2021 law clarified the state’s hemp rules and specifically prohibited the sale of inhalable hemp products.
Companies targeted by the lawsuit
The lawsuit targets several hemp companies, including G.E.T. Agriculture LTD, Hempacco Company, Inc., Cheef Holdings, IHF Online LLC, Eagle Moon Farm, LLC, EMH Wholesale, Berkshire CBD, and Berkshire Farm Collective. These companies are accused of selling inhalable hemp products and violating state regulations.
Statements from Hempacco Company CEO
The CEO of Hempacco Company, Inc., Sandro Piancone, has responded to the lawsuit, stating that the company does not sell products to California consumers and is in full compliance with Proposition 65 rules. The other companies named in the lawsuit have not yet responded.
Potential penalties faced by the companies
If found guilty, the companies could face significant penalties. These penalties may include fines for sales violations, violations of Proposition 65 Warning law, and violations of the state’s unfair practices law. These fines can range from $1,000 for each sales violation to $2,500 per day for each violation of the Prop. 65 Warning law.
Filing of the lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed on August 31 in the Superior Court of Alameda County. The filing is available to view for those interested in the details of the case.
Additional perspectives and comments
There may be additional perspectives and comments regarding this lawsuit. It is an opportunity for stakeholders to share their insights and opinions on the matter. Ganjapreneur welcomes suggestions for revisions or additional commentary from readers. If chosen by the editors, the comments will be featured along with the commenter’s name, job title, and organization, providing a platform for different viewpoints on the case.
In conclusion, the lawsuit filed by California against multiple hemp companies sheds light on the ongoing challenges faced by companies operating in the hemp industry due to the discrepancy between state and federal regulations. It remains to be seen how the case will unfold and what implications it may have for the hemp industry as a whole.