Dentons: Cannabis Cos. Must Brace For More Mislabeling Class Actions


Cassandra Beckman Widay and Amy Rubenstein

January 30, 2023

Cassandra Beckman Widay

Contact Cassandra


Amy Rubenstein

Contact Amy


The plaintiffs bar has set its sights on cannabis companies, recently hitting them with consumer class actions alleging that labels and advertisements misstated products’ THC contents.

Taking a page from the classic playbook for consumer product litigation, these cases invoke unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes, which exist in various forms in all 50 states and have long vexed traditional companies selling personal care or food and beverage products.

As cannabis companies grow, so too may the targets on their backs for these types of claims.

Recent THC Mislabeling Lawsuits

From October 2022 to January 2023, one law firm filed six putative class actions under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of putative classes of millions of California purchasers of various cannabis products.[1]

The near-verbatim complaints allege that overstated THC levels inappropriately cause consumers to pay higher prices and, moreover, that a much broader THC inflation problem exists across the cannabis industry.

Three of the six complaints base their claims on a Sept. 8, 2022, WeedWeek article[2] about potency tests. The other three complaints do not cite the WeedWeek article, and mention independent laboratory testing, without attaching any such records. 

The WeedWeek article cautioned against drawing conclusions from its “imperfect  experiment” because “[t]he tests don’t account for many variables” and there could be  “possible corruptions.”

Indeed, many different factors can affect testing results — such as the methodology,  product age, chain of custody, laboratory, equipment, extraction solvent, storage  temperature, moisture content and ambient humidity.

Because the cannabis industry currently lacks a standard testing protocol, it remains to be  seen how potency tests could accurately and reliably form the basis of a lawsuit.

The disclaimers in the WeedWeek article did not deter the trio of associated complaints, and  the claims remain in the public domain.

Perhaps this particular wave of THC mislabeling class actions will continue as it has for  months, or will spark other lawsuits with similar claims. Cannabis industry participants will  certainly be keeping a close eye on how these cases unfold.


Sampling of Earlier THC Mislabeling Lawsuits 

The cases above were not the first putative class actions with claims about overstated THC  levels.

Earlier in 2022, in Plumlee v. Steep Hill Inc.,[3] plaintiffs sought to represent a class of  Arkansas medical marijuana users and alleged, among other things, that a cannabis  technology company violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by selling products  that contained less THC than advertised.

Following motions to dismiss, however, in October 2022, all the plaintiffs voluntarily moved  to dismiss the Plumlee case without prejudice.

Looking further back to 2020, in Blackford v. Cura CS LLC multiple plaintiffs — at least  initially — sought to represent a national class of purchasers of vape cartridges.

According to counsel’s commissioned independent lab testing, such products contained a  fraction of their stated THC levels.[4] Iterations of this case oscillated back and forth  between the Multnomah County Circuit Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of  Oregon.[5]

Eventually the operative Blackford complaint involved one plaintiff who sought to represent  solely a class of Oregon purchasers, including in a claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade  Practices Act. In 2021, the Blackford case ended by a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.


Simmering Issues 

The lawsuits summarized above are unlikely to be the last of their kind. Comparable  mislabeling accusations were made about CBD products following widely reported U.S. Food  and Drug Administration testing,[6] culminating in numerous consumer class actions across  the U.S.

And supposed exposés that question the accuracy of cannabis products’ stated potencies  may very well continue, bringing about more THC mislabeling class actions. Plus, motivated  law firms can always pursue their own product testing in laboratories.

As the cannabis industry continues to expand its geographic reach internationally, the  associated risk of consumer class actions may expand as well. At least one massive THC  mislabeling class action was already filed abroad — Langevin v. Aurora Cannabis Inc. in the  Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.[7] And the plaintiffs bar might be even more keen to  test its prospects in emerging domestic markets.

Beyond the direct risks of THC mislabeling class actions, there are also collateral risks to  consider; depending on the circumstances, these could involve regulators, recalls and even  personal injury lawsuits.

Although it did not face typical THC inflation accusations, in October 2022, multistate  cannabis operator Curaleaf Holdings Inc. preliminarily settled a mislabeling class action  resulting from a manufacturing mix-up in which buckets of CBD and THC ingredients were  swapped.

The proposed settlement in Williamson v. CuraLeaf is subject to approval by the District of  Oregon, and will not prevent consumers from pursuing individualized personal injury claims  based on unintentional THC consumption.[8]



  • The threat of consumer class actions should be a wake-up call for cannabis companies.  Apart from the direct and collateral legal risks that such lawsuits pose, the cannabis  industry’s overall reputation is being scrutinized. Regardless of whether THC mislabeling  claims ultimately prevail in court, the negative press coverage alone can damage cannabis  brands and fuel national and state-level anti-cannabis campaigns.
  • Because consumer class actions can lead to such multifaceted exposures, maturing cannabis  companies should be proactively assessing and mitigating their legal risks.
  • Those efforts can include developing a compliance program around THC testing procedures,  monitoring legislative and regulatory activity, updating product labels and advertisements,  and using mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers in consumer agreements if  possible.
  • If a bona fide mislabeling issue arises, cannabis companies should be prepared with a recall  plan to promptly address the issue. This can involve identifying team members to lead the  recall, understanding agency guidance and regulations affecting the process, being aware of  any appropriate insurance or legal contacts, and having a communications strategy.[9]
  • At least one state, New Jersey, recommends conducting a mock recall to prepare for the  real thing.[10] Although a recall happens after the fact, when done well, it shows that a  company takes these issues seriously.
  • Even when a consumer product company takes all appropriate and reasonable steps to  mitigate risks, it is nearly impossible to eliminate completely the risk of mislabeling class  actions.
  • Particularly for cannabis companies, mislabeling class actions can affect not only an  individual business, but also the industry’s credibility as a whole.



Cassandra Beckman Widay is a senior managing associate and Amy Rubenstein is a partner  at Dentons. 

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views  of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective  affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and  should not be taken as legal advice. 




[1] See Centeno v. DreamFields Brands Inc., No.22STCV33980 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A.  Cnty.); Willeford v. Greenfield Organix Inc., No.22CV003301 (Cal. Super. Ct., Monterey  Cnty.); Gallard v. Ironworks Collective Inc., No. 22STCV38021 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A.  Cnty.); Argueta v. V O Leasing Corp., No. 22STCV38126 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty.); Lun  v. Lowell Farms Inc., No. 22STCV38886 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty.); and Lun v. Four Star  Mfg. LLC, No. 23STCV00213 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty.).

[2] Alex Halperin, Exclusive: We Tested Top Calif. Prerolls for Potency Inflation, WeedWeek  (Sept.8, 2022), for-potency-inflation/.

[3] Plumlee v. Steep Hill, Inc., No.22-CV-00638 (E.D. Ark.).

[4] Blackford v. Cura CS LLC, No. 20CV18270 (Or. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cnty.).

[5] See No.20-CV-00982 (D. Or.); No.20CV25203 (Or. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cnty.); No.21- CV-01240 (D. Or.).

[6] U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Sampling Study of the Current Cannabidiol  Marketplace to Determine the Extent that Products Are Mislabeled or Adulterated (July 8,  2020), available at ba6b-9bb8f9f2264c.pdf.

[7] See, e.g., Langevin v. Aurora Cannabis Inc., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Court  File No. 2001-07541.

[8] See Williamson v. CuraLeaf, Inc., No. 22-CV-00782 (D. Or.).

[9] Joanna Borman & Amy Rubenstein, Best Practices for Cannabis Cos. Managing a Product  Recall, Law 360 (Dec. 15, 2022), for-cannabis-cos-managing-a-product-recall.

[10] N.J. Amin. Code §17:30-9:17(d) (2023).


Originally Published At Law360

Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers

We Support

Cannabis Law Journal – Contributing Authors

Editor – Sean Hocking

Author Bios

Matt Maurer – Minden Gross
Jeff Hergot – Wildboer Dellelce LLP

Costa Rica
Tim Morales – The Cannabis Industry Association Costa Rica

Elvin Rodríguez Fabilena


Julie Godard
Carl L Rowley -Thompson Coburn LLP

Jerry Chesler – Chesler Consulting

Ian Stewart – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Otis Felder – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lance Rogers – Greenspoon Marder – San Diego
Jessica McElfresh -McElfresh Law – San Diego
Tracy Gallegos – Partner – Fox Rothschild

Adam Detsky – Knight Nicastro
Dave Rodman – Dave Rodman Law Group
Peter Fendel – CMR Real Estate Network
Nate Reed – CMR Real Estate Network

Matthew Ginder – Greenspoon Marder
David C. Kotler – Cohen Kotler

William Bogot – Fox Rothschild

Valerio Romano, Attorney – VGR Law Firm, PC

Neal Gidvani – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder
Phillip Silvestri – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder

Tracy Gallegos – Associate Fox Rothschild

New Jersey

Matthew G. Miller – MG Miller Intellectual Property Law LLC
Daniel T. McKillop – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

New York
Gregory J. Ryan, Esq. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Tim Nolen Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Paul Loney & Kristie Cromwell – Loney Law Group
William Stewart – Half Baked Labs

Andrew B. Sacks – Managing Partner Sacks Weston Diamond
William Roark – Principal Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin
Joshua Horn – Partner Fox Rothschild

Washington DC
Teddy Eynon – Partner Fox Rothschild