Cannabis and industrial hemp: advertising: civil action.
The bill adds layers of accountability for those engaged in commercial cannabis activities by introducing civil actions that can be initiated by the Attorney General or local counsel against violators of the new advertising restrictions. It outlines significant civil penalties for non-compliance, distinguishing between licensed and unlicensed operators, which elevates the stakes for unregulated businesses engaging in cannabis sales. Moreover, these provisions reflect an effort to align cannabis marketing practices with broader consumer protection laws, ensuring that advertising does not mislead the public or target youth.
Senate Bill 1498, introduced by Ashby, seeks to amend and add provisions to the Business and Professions Code and the Health and Safety Code concerning advertising for cannabis and industrial hemp products. The bill builds upon existing laws established by the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) and the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). Specifically, SB 1498 extends current advertising restrictions on licensed cannabis operators to include unlicensed operators and further stipulates marketing guidelines aimed at preventing misleading advertising and protecting vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant individuals.
The sentiment surrounding SB 1498 appears to be largely supportive from those advocating for responsible cannabis marketing practices. Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to create a standardized framework that promotes consumer safety and prevents the exploitation of children and vulnerable adults through misleading advertisements. However, there are concerns from some stakeholders about the implications this might have for small, unlicensed operators who may struggle to comply with the more stringent rules. The balance between regulation and access for small businesses remains a point of contention.
Critics of the bill, especially from small business sectors, express that the increased regulatory burden may lead to higher operational costs and competitive disadvantages against larger, established businesses that can more easily absorb such costs. Moreover, issues related to local versus state regulatory authority could arise, particularly if communities desire to enact stricter rules than state law dictates. The broader implications of these regulations might lead to unintended outcomes where compliance becomes overly burdensome, thus affecting market equity.