Insights
Publications

Cannabis Industry, Including CBD Products, Subject to New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements

January 20, 2021 Articles

Updated Proposition 65 warning requirements for cannabis products came into effect on January 3, 2021. As of that date, anyone offering for sale cannabis products in California—including hemp-derived CBD products—must provide an appropriate warning in accordance with the current regulations, with limited exceptions. Noncompliance with the new regulations may result in government or private prosecution, with potential penalties of up to $2,500 per day for an alleged violation.

Prior Proposition 65 Requirement was Limited to Smokeable Cannabis

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, requires the State of California to maintain an updated list of toxic substances known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Persons or companies who offer products for sale in California containing Proposition 65-listed substances must provide an appropriate warning to the consumer (with limited exceptions), or face the prospect of penalties of up to $2,500 per day. 

“Marijuana smoke” was added to the Proposition 65 list in 2009 solely as a cancer-causing agent. After that date, a cancer-specific warning was required for all smokeable cannabis. In addition, if a cannabis product contained other Proposition 65 listed substances—such as certain heavy metals or pesticides—warnings were applicable. However, THC was not a listed Proposition 65 substance. As such, no warning was required for non-smokeable cannabis products, including hemp-derived CBD products, unless those products contained other listed substances.

New Requirements Expand Proposition 65 Requirements, Including to Hemp-Derived CBD

On January 3, 2020, the State of California agency that oversees Proposition 65 (the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) updated the Proposition 65 list to (1) add “cannabis (marijuana) smoke” as a reproductive toxin causing developmental harm (in addition to the prior listing as a cancer-causing agent), and (2) add Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) as a reproductive toxin causing developmental harm.

The one-year grace period to provide adequate warnings based on these new listings expired on January 3, 2021. As such, to avoid a potential claim of a Proposition 65 violation:

  • persons offering for sale smokeable marijuana should now be providing appropriate warnings that address both cancer and reproductive/developmental harm, and
  • persons offering for sale any THC-containing products—including, but not limited to, edibles/concentrates/vapes and hemp-derived CBD products—should now be providing an appropriate reproductive harm warning.

It is important to note that the warning requirement applies to any products offered for sale as of January 3, not just products manufactured or distributed to retailers after that date. Any items “on the shelf” (either physically or online) after January 3, 2021 are subject to the newly applicable Proposition 65 warning requirements, regardless of packaging dates.

Impact of New Requirements – Potential Legal Enforcement and Penalties

Given the heavily-regulated nature of the cannabis industry, persons violating the new Proposition 65 requirements could face enforcement actions by the California Attorney General, district attorneys, or (in cities with populations of over 750,000) city attorneys. However, even if government enforcement does not occur, penalties may also be sought by private “citizen” enforcers of Proposition 65, who are very active across the state. In addition to seeking recovery of up to $2,500 per day of an alleged violation, enforcers may also seek recovery of their attorneys’ fees in prosecuting the action.

Citizen enforcers must serve the alleged violator with a notice of the alleged violation at least 60 days prior to initiating an enforcement action in court. Anyone receiving such a notice should promptly seek legal advice from experienced Proposition 65 defense counsel, with the goals of promptly:

  • determining whether a viable defense to the Proposition 65 claim may exist;
  • identifying and enforcing any potential right to defense and indemnification from another party in the chain of distribution for the product at issue;
  • curing any alleged violation, in order to limit the number of days for which penalties may be available;
  • if appropriate, negotiating a prompt settlement with the citizen enforcer, before the enforcer incurs attorneys’ fees to initiate a court proceeding.

Firm Highlights

News

Election Brings Questions for Cannabis SPACs

Drew Goodwin commented in The Deal article "Election Brings Questions for Cannabis SPACs."

Read More
Publication

Cannabis IP: Using Intellectual Property to Protect Your Assets and Grow Your Business

Nate Garhart and Ashley Roybal-Reid discuss "Cannabis IP: Using Intellectual Property to Protect Your Assets and Grow Your Business." Intellectual property (IP) is a critical issue in the cannabis industry. Creating and protecting cannabis products...

Read More
Publication

Top 10 Practical Business Implications Arising From the Passage of the CPRA

California’s Proposition 24 passed as expected, and the new California Privacy Rights Act will change the privacy landscape created by the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), which went into effect only months ago. While...

Read More
Publication

Cannabis and Hemp-Derived Products Subject to New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements in California

California’s regulatory framework for cannabis and hemp-derived products, including CBD, continues to evolve, most recently via updated Proposition 65 warning requirements that came into full effect Jan. 3, 2021. As of that date, anyone...

Read More
Publication

Cannabis Advertisements Prohibited on California Interstates and State Cross-Border Routes

You may have recently received a notice from the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and/or the California Department of Public Health regarding billboard advertisements featuring cannabis products and...

Read More
Publication

SB 67 Moves California’s Cannabis Appellations Program Forward

In February of 2020, the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) issued its first iteration of the Cannabis Appellations Program (CAP) , which set forth proposed regulations for licensed cannabis cultivators to establish...

Read More
News

Jeffrey Hamilton Named a 2021 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow

Read More
Publication

Alternatives to Bankruptcy in the Cannabis Sector

Recreational or medicinal cannabis is now legal in 35 states and the District of Columbia. But cannabis is still a  Schedule I controlled substance  under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which presents a host...

Read More
Event

New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements for Cannabis and Hemp-Derived Products

Donald Sobelman and Wendy Hernandez will discuss "New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements for Cannabis and Hemp-Derived Products." Proposition 65 requires “clear and reasonable” warnings in California for products containing chemicals on the State’s list...

Read More
Publication

SEC Expands Definition of “Accredited Investor” – Here Are 5 Key Takeaways

The SEC recently adopted amendments to Rule 501(a) of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 that expand the definition of “accredited investor” by adding new categories of eligibility based on professional knowledge...

Read More