A recent lawsuit in Alabama, challenging the award of medical cannabis licenses by regulators, underscores the potential pitfalls in licensing regimes where applicants are selected based on specific enumerated factors. Below, we examine the Alabama lawsuit in greater detail and consider the alternative policy of utilizing a lottery system to award licenses.

Recent developments in the Massachusetts cannabis industry, significant legislative changes, and legal actions have spotlighted the contentious issue of so-called community impact fees. These fees, which are intended to offset municipal costs associated with hosting cannabis businesses, have sparked debate regarding their fairness and implementation.

In January, we published an article in this newsletter on the state of cannabis taxation, including a discussion of the crippling impact of Internal Revenue Code §280E (IRC §280E) on the industry. Since that article was published, the industry has been shaken and encouraged by the news that Trulieve Cannabis Corp. received refunds totaling $113 million from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). To date, Trulieve has refused to divulge the specific basis for the refunds, citing competitive, trade-secret, and pending litigation reasons. In an article in Cannabis Business Times posted on February 29, however, it was reported that Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers responded “yes” to a question on X (formerly Twitter) on whether the refund was related to IRC §280E.[1] In addition to Trulieve, another cannabis business, Ascend Wellness Holdings, has also reported it has amended federal tax returns for several years and is expecting to receive refunds.[2] Before jumping into the speculation as to what the specific basis of the refunds are, it is helpful to briefly review IRC §280E.

On April 11, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of the State of California arguing that policyholders should be able to assert claims under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) independent of a one-year claim filing deadline under the California Insurance Code and their homeowners policy. The AG argues that the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations should apply, not the one-year window mandated.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently announced an Airline Passenger Protection Partnership with state attorneys general (AGs), marking a significant expansion of AGs’ regulatory reach. This partnership, formed in response to growing frustration among AGs over their limited ability to investigate passenger complaints and enforce state consumer protection laws against airlines, empowers AGs to investigate complaints against airlines and grants them access to complaints filed directly by consumers with the DOT.

Washington Attorney General (AG) Bob Ferguson prevailed in his lawsuit against a plastic surgery practice, Allure Esthetic, and its owner, Dr. Javad A. Sajan (collectively, the company), alleging violations of the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), based upon the company’s practice of requiring patients to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that prohibited them from posting negative online reviews. The District Court granted the AG’s motion for summary judgment (in part) and found the company liable for violations of the CRFA. Damages will be decided at a later date.

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell issued an advisory to provide guidance on how state consumer protection, anti-discrimination, and data security laws apply to artificial intelligence (AI). The advisory emphasizes that these existing laws apply to emerging technology, including AI systems.

This episode of Regulatory Oversight spotlights a recent episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, “Navigating Facility Relocation: Legal and Practical Considerations,” featuring David Dove from our Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. In this episode, podcast host and Consumer Financial Services Partner Chris Willis converses with David about the legal and practical considerations for businesses planning to relocate a facility to a new state. David shares his insights on the various incentives available at the federal, state, and local levels, including grants, tax incentives, and economic development programs. He emphasizes the importance of strategic planning, regulator engagement, and having experienced legal counsel to ensure businesses maximize their opportunities and navigate potential challenges. The discussion provides valuable insights for businesses considering expansion or relocation.