In the 12th and final episode of our 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 Stephen Piepgrass, RISE practice group leader, to discuss recent developments in the online gaming industry.
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.
The rapid evolution of intoxicating cannabinoids has brought forth significant changes and challenges to both the agricultural and commercial cannabis sectors across the U.S. These new cannabinoids have exposed gaps in state and federal regulatory frameworks, allowing intoxicating substances to be marketed without the stringent level of oversight applied to state-legal cannabis products. These hemp-derived cannabinoids are often sold in gas stations and convenience stores, posing significant risks to consumers, especially minors. The lack of clear federal guidelines has left state attorneys general (AG) grappling with this gray market, leading to calls for legislative action to address the issue comprehensively.
Only one day after reports surfaced that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will proceed with rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) reintroduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA or the Act), a nearly 300-page bill that would create a framework for the comprehensive regulation and taxation of cannabis in the United States. Then, on May 16th, the Department of Justice issued its notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III. Administrative and legislative approaches to cannabis reform each have their own strengths and weakness that must be carefully considered. In addition, these competing approaches offer an opportunity to highlight the political differences between administrative and legislative policy reform at the federal level.
Last week the office of the Attorney General of Connecticut announced that the state had reached a settlement with HighBazaar over allegations that the organization allowed the unlicensed sale of cannabis, and the presence of minors, at their outdoor social cannabis events in Connecticut. The settlement represents one of many enforcement actions aimed at eliminating the state’s gray market and protecting licensed businesses and consumers.