Photo of Cole White

Cole White

Subscribe to Cole White's Posts

Cole is a member of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) group. He has a decade of experience working in the attorney general community, having joined the firm from the Wyoming Office of the Attorney General, where he was assistant attorney general.

Contact:Read more about Cole White

METRC, Inc., the predominant provider of seed-to-sale tracking software used by state regulatory bodies overseeing legal cannabis markets across the U.S., faces serious allegations detailed in a recent lawsuit filed in Oregon. The lawsuit, brought by a former executive at METRC, accuses the company of whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination under Oregon law. Central to the plaintiff’s complaint are allegations that METRC knowingly ignored substantial compliance violations within its tracking systems in California, potentially facilitating illegal diversion of cannabis products. The litigation raises critical concerns for cannabis regulatory compliance, not only in Oregon and California but also in the 25 other jurisdictions that rely on METRC’s systems.

In a significant regulatory shift, the Texas Lottery Commission has enacted an immediate ban on lottery ticket courier services in the state, effective February 24. This decisive move marks a stark departure from the commission’s previous position that it lacked jurisdiction over these couriers. State officials in Texas backing the change assert that groups who buy mass quantities of lottery tickets using unregulated lottery couriers avoid safeguards in the regulatory system and undermine public trust in the lottery system.

On January 22, lawmakers in Colorado introduced SB25-076, (the act) which aims to address concerns surrounding the availability of intoxicating products (including regulated cannabis products) within the state, especially to children and young adults. To address these concerns, the act would impose new requirements on licensed businesses related to serving sizes and labeling requirements and would restrict sales of certain products to adults under 26 years old. While the intent behind the act is to mitigate potential risks associated with high-potency cannabis, the approach taken is arguably too extreme and places excessive burdens on the industry. A more nuanced strategy is needed to balance public health concerns with the operational realities of licensed cannabis businesses.

In the second episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Cole White, a member of Troutman Pepper’s Regulatory Investigation, Strategy, and Enforcement (RISE) practice group, is joined by colleagues Stephen Piepgrass and Mike Yaghi to analyze the rising regulatory scrutiny of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies by state attorneys general (AG).

This year’s election saw no shortage of surprises at the federal, state, and local levels, and Colorado Springs, CO was no exception. Although the results have yet to be officially certified, it appears that voters have approved an initiative that would authorize recreational cannabis sales in the city. Colorado Springs has long stood as one of the major hold outs of recreational cannabis legalization in Colorado, due largely in part to its community of active service members. Alongside the recreational sales authorization, a separate ballot measure that would have amended the city’s charter to prohibit any recreational sales within the city failed by only 1%. That slim margin, coupled with continued legal uncertainty, may foreshadow a tumultuous implementation process.

Introduction

The interplay between the unintentional federal legalization of intoxicating hemp-derived products under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) and state regulatory frameworks is increasingly testing the limits of jurisdictional boundaries, as shown in a recent decision remanding a Connecticut consumer protection case against RZ Smoke, Inc. back to the Connecticut Superior Court.

Just before the close of the Colorado legislature’s 2024 session in mid-May, lawmakers approved a bill aimed at streamlining several deficiencies in the state’s regulation of marijuana businesses. While not all of the bill’s intended fixes were passed, certain provisions will facilitate significant changes for businesses, including for licensing processes, contaminant testing protocols, reporting obligations, compliance procedures, and operations management practices.

The proposed rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of U.S. cannabis policy but may bring few practical changes to state-licensed markets. On May 20, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking[1] (NPRM) to initiate the change, launching a 60-day public comment period that concluded on July 22. The proposal has stirred significant interest and debate among stakeholders, including state regulators, advocacy groups, health experts, individuals, and licensed businesses, resulting in the posting of more than 43,000 comments.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to transfer cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a change that could significantly affect current state cannabis programs. In response, the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) submitted a detailed comment letter to the DOJ requesting clarity on how rescheduling will impact these existing regulatory structures. An examination of CANNRA’s public comment offers insights for state-legal businesses into what the future may hold for the joint regulation of cannabis at the state and federal levels.