Even the most responsible hemp operator should understand that it operates in a world full of risk. But I doubt many of them believe they might be accused of racketeering. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether to sanction a commercial trucker’s attempt to bring a racketeering claim against CBD companies, whose allegedly mislabeled products the trucker claims led to his firing.

As always, Sam Reisman at Law360 distills the issue nicely:

The case concerns an allegation that companies sold CBD products with detectable amounts of THC, purportedly costing plaintiff Douglas J. Horn his job as a commercial trucker after he tested positive on a drug test. Oral arguments on Tuesday hinged largely on whether Horn’s claims stemmed from a personal injury — which would be excluded from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — or whether his firing was an economic injury and therefore redressable under RICO.

In taking the case, the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve a 3-2 circuit split over whether the civil prongs of the RICO statute allow a plaintiff to seek damages for economic harms stemming from injuries to their person.

Again, from Reisman:

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the liberal wing of the high court expressed skepticism with the CBD companies’ rendering of the case, which they said foregrounded Horn’s ingestion of the product as the source of the injury, as opposed to his firing for a positive drug test.

…

Lisa Blatt, an attorney for the CBD companies, told the justices that agreeing with Horn’s interpretation of the statute would open the door for virtually limitless personal injury cases under civil RICO, as long as plaintiffs could allege some connection between their ingestion of a product and a loss to their business or property: “Respondent’s rule also leaves the personal exclusion [in civil RICO] toothless, since virtually all personal injuries result in monetary loss,” Blatt said. “It is utterly implausible that Congress federalized every slip-and-fall involving RICO predicates. Personal injuries are serious and may support state tort claims, but they are not the stuff of RICO.”

On the other side, conservative justices attempted to discern how to draw a line between bona fide economic claims and personal injury claims pleaded as economic claims.

Easha Anand, arguing on behalf of Horn, said the vast majority of personal injury claims, such as those alleging pain and suffering or emotional distress, would still be excluded even if Horn was permitted to pursue his RICO claim against the CBD companies: “In your average slip-and-fall case, you’re not going to be able to prove a predicate act, let alone a pattern of predicate acts, let alone a pattern carried on through a racketeering enterprise,” Anand said.

…

Justice Neil Gorsuch observed, “There’s a failure to warn that this product contains ingredients that your client didn’t know about and should have known about and had a right to know about. I would have thought that that would have been kind of a classic personal injury.”

The Takeaway

This is pretty scary stuff for CBD and other hemp operators. RICO is no joke and carries very serious penalties (both civil and criminal depending on who is bringing the suit).

From the perspective of a CBD manufacturer, it seems unfair to hold the manufacturer responsible to control how its products are used and, as in this case, the implications of that use (here, an alleged economic injury).

If the Court rules that CBD and other hemp manufacturers are subject to RICO charges simply by selling their products to people who do things outside of the manufacturers’ control, it could pose an existential crisis to the industry with potentially unlimited civil (and maybe even criminal) liability. We have warned about this before.

That said, while it’s always difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will vote on any issue, I do not believe the Court will push the hemp industry to the brink. I suspect the Court will either rule that the claims in the present case are personal injury claims excluded from RICO and/or provide guidance for how lower courts should examine such “mixed” claims.

We’ll of course provide additional information once we hear from the Court. Stay tuned.

It is important to note that advertising health services is subject to different regulations than advertising therapeutic products. Consequently, advertisers, manufacturers and sponsors must evaluate whether their business name could be interpreted as an advertisement for therapeutic goods. If so, they should consider whether the business name, including company or trading names, could be viewed as a ‘reference’ that draws the audience’s attention to medicinal cannabis, as any mention or similar terms to ‘cannabis’ are likely to have that effect. It is essential to recognise that the impact of promoting the use or supply of medicinal cannabis does not depend on a single promotional element but rather on the overall promotion. This includes all components of the promotional information and materials that accompany the name or branding. Advertising can result from the combination of separate statements, images or designs that collectively promote the use or supply of therapeutic goods.

Advertising

The prohibition on advertising medicinal cannabis to the public is determined by the context in which the material is perceived. When evaluating whether information about therapeutic goods qualifies as advertising, it is essential to consider the broader context of the material’s presentation. This encompasses various factors that influence the conveyed message, including the context of the information or activity, the intended audience and their likely interpretation of the message, as well as the presence of non-verbal and unwritten cues, such as visual elements. These factors can significantly affect communication and may alter the message perceived by consumers. 

For example, if an advertisement for a health service, such as a pain treatment service, includes references to medicinal cannabis, even in the company name or trading name, a reasonable consumer may conclude that the advertisement seeks to promote both the use of medicinal cannabis for pain relief and the pain treatment service itself. Including a disclaimer, such as advising the consumer to consult a health professional regarding suitable treatment options, does not exempt the advertiser from complying with legislative requirements.

The distinction between promoting a health service and the therapeutic product utilised in its delivery can be nuanced. Therefore, it is crucial for advertisers to consider how a typical consumer might perceive their advertisement in relation to the promotion of the therapeutic product.

Legal Compliance

To ensure legal compliance in promoting a business or service, advertisers should focus on the health services they provide and avoid referencing medicinal cannabis. For instance, stating “Our clinic offers consultations related to pain management” is a more compliant approach. The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s interpretation of advertising for medicinal cannabis is broad, covering all methods of promoting its use or supply. This includes company names, product names, abbreviations such as CBD and THC, colloquial terms, and any imagery related to cannabis. Any combination of statements or images that implies medicinal cannabis can be considered advertising, even in the absence of explicit promotional language.

Summary

In summary, it is prohibited to mention prescription medications in advertisements for therapeutic goods. If content discusses health conditions and consumers can reasonably infer, either from the context or through direct or indirect references, that medicinal cannabis or any other prescription medication is intended for use concerning these conditions, the content may be deemed an unlawful advertisement for therapeutic goods. Not all information related to therapeutic goods is classified as advertising. However, if the content aligns with the definition of ‘advertise’ as outlined in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)—which includes anything that is directly or indirectly intended to promote the use or supply of therapeutic goods—then the relevant legislative requirements for advertising such goods must be complied with.

“Indirect intent” in this context does not refer to the explicit intention of the party responsible for the content, but rather to what a reasonable consumer might infer as the intent behind the content. Terms such as “plant-based medicine,” “plant medicine,” “cannabidiol” and “CBD oil,” which relate to medical cannabis products, may be considered promotional if they suggest a connection to medicinal cannabis. Businesses promoting a health service must ensure they do not inadvertently advertise a prescription medicine in their marketing materials. If the consumer is encouraged to seek out a health service based on the therapeutic goods available, the content is likely to be regarded as an advertisement for those therapeutic goods.

For additional information, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has established the Medicinal Cannabis Hub, accessible at https://www.tga.gov.au/products/unapproved-therapeutic-goods/medicinal-cannabis-hub, and has also provided advertising guidance for businesses involved in the medicinal cannabis sector, which can be found at https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/advertising-guidance-businesses-involved-medicinal-cannabis-products.pdf. These resources are designed to assist both consumers and industry professionals in understanding their obligations.

In the ever-evolving landscape of American policy, the story of cannabis legalization unfolds as a testament to societal change and the complexities of governance. This narrative, however, is not without its dissonances, particularly in the realm of financial services.

Introduction

In a nation marked by its pioneering spirit and the relentless pursuit of progress, the cannabis industry emerges as a vibrant tableau of innovation, marred by the shadows of regulatory uncertainty. As states across the Union chart their own courses, legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use, they weave a patchwork of policies that stand in stark contrast to the federal government’s steadfast classification of the plant. This discord at the heart of cannabis commerce sets the stage for a deeper exploration into an issue that transcends mere legality, touching upon the very fabric of economic integration and societal values.

The Current Legal and Regulatory Landscape

At the federal level, cannabis remains ensnared in the Schedule I category of the Controlled Substances Act, a classification that denotes a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This designation, rooted in the drug policy of yesteryears, casts a long shadow over the burgeoning cannabis industry, constraining its access to essential financial services and stifling its growth potential. Banks and financial institutions, wary of the legal ramifications of servicing cannabis-related businesses (CRBs), find themselves at a crossroads, caught between the promise of a new market and the peril of federal reprisal.

Cannabis Banking and Legislation Timeline

The following timeline weaves together the historical context, pivotal moments, and potential future developments in cannabis banking and legislation, including the critical role of the SAFE Banking Act and the impact of reclassifying marijuana. It serves as a guide through the evolving relationship between the cannabis industry and the financial sector, highlighting the journey towards regulatory clarity and economic integration.

1970 – Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Enacted: Marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug, indicating a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, severely limiting research, and banking capabilities.
1996 – California Legalizes Medical Marijuana: Marks the beginning of state-led initiatives diverging from federal law, creating a patchwork of regulations, and increasing the need for banking solutions for cannabis businesses.
2013 – Cole Memorandum Issued: Although not law, it provides some protection against federal enforcement in states that have legalized marijuana, signaling a slight shift in federal attitude but leaving financial institutions wary of engaging with cannabis businesses.
2014 – 2019 – Incremental Banking Guidance: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issues guidance for banks on serving cannabis businesses in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, but the banking challenges persist due to the overarching federal prohibition.
2019 & 2021 – SAFE Banking Act Proposals: The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act was introduced in Congress, aiming to protect financial institutions that service cannabis-related businesses in states where it has been legalized. Despite passing in the House, it stalls in the Senate.
2020 – Present – Growing Bipartisan Support for Cannabis Banking Reform: As more states legalize cannabis for medical or recreational use, there is increased bipartisan support for federal banking reforms, including the SAFE Banking Act, to provide a safe harbor for banks.
2024 (Not So Hypothetical Future) – Marijuana Rescheduled to Schedule III: In a landmark move, marijuana is reclassified as a Schedule III controlled substance, acknowledging its medical use and lowering barriers for banking and research. This hypothetical future event would significantly alter the cannabis industry landscape. This is happening now.
2024 – 2025 (Future Outlook) – Implementation of the SAFE Banking Act: Following the reclassification of marijuana, Congress passes the SAFE Banking Act, easing many of the remaining financial and banking challenges for cannabis businesses. Financial institutions begin openly serving the cannabis industry, supported by clear federal guidelines.
2025 and Beyond – Normalization and Expansion: With the barriers to banking and finance removed, the cannabis industry sees a period of significant growth and normalization. Financial products and services tailored to the cannabis industry become widespread, and cannabis businesses are integrated into the broader economy.

Navigating the Dissonance: The Case for Reform

Amid the thicket of regulatory challenges and banking quandaries, a beacon of consensus emerges from the legislative realms. On May 2, 2024, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) issued a compelling appeal to the Department of Justice, urging the reconsideration of cannabis’s Schedule I status. “Currently, a total of 47 inclusive of states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories except American Samoa have legalized cannabis for medical and/or adult recreational use,” the NCSL articulated, highlighting the stark contrast between state-led initiatives and federal policy inertia. This plea for reclassification is not merely administrative; it is a clarion call for alignment, seeking to reconcile the federal stance with the lived realities of millions and the operational exigencies of a burgeoning industry.

Discussion Points

This moment of potential transformation invites a broader reflection on the implications of such a shift. The reclassification of cannabis and the enactment of measures like the SAFE Banking Act could herald a new era for not just the cannabis industry but for American society at large. It prompts us to question the role of federalism in drug policy, the dynamics of change in a conservative sector like banking, and the societal values that underpin our approach to regulation and commerce.

Furthermore, the push for reform illuminates the intricate dance between innovation and regulation. As we stand on the precipice of change, it is imperative to consider how financial institutions can navigate this evolving landscape. The integration of cannabis into mainstream commerce offers a unique opportunity to redefine the relationship between the state, the market, and the individual, challenging us to reimagine the boundaries of entrepreneurship, responsibility, and community in the 21st century.

So…Now What?

The conversation surrounding cannabis banking and federal reform is more than a policy debate; it is a reflection of our collective journey toward a more nuanced understanding of progress, governance, and the human experience. As we ponder the path forward, it is clear that the resolution of this dissonance will require not just legislative change but a reevaluation of societal norms and values. In this endeavor, entities like Ankura play a pivotal role, not as advocates for a particular outcome, but as navigators helping to chart a course through uncharted waters, ensuring that regardless of the direction we take, we move forward with insight, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the common good.

Solutions: A Blueprint for Navigating the Green Wave Together

In the evolving narrative of cannabis legalization and its implications for the financial sector, the role of consultancy firms becomes not just relevant but indispensable. Amidst this backdrop, Ankura emerges not as a mere participant but as a guiding force, navigating the intricate interplay between regulation, commerce, and innovation. This section, far from a sales pitch, is a contemplation on the utility and insight that Ankura brings to a landscape at the cusp of transformation.

The Art of Navigation in Uncharted Waters

In the realm of cannabis banking, where the regulatory environment remains as fluid as the sea, Ankura stands as the seasoned navigator, charting a course through tumultuous waters. The firm’s approach, deeply rooted in expertise and foresight, transcends the conventional consultancy model. Ankura’s role is akin to that of a cartographer mapping the unknown, transforming the complexities of legislation and market dynamics into a navigable blueprint for its clients.

Crafting Compliance Amid Complexity

The crux of Ankura’s value lies in its nuanced understanding of compliance within the cannabis sector—a field where the ground beneath one’s feet shifts with regulatory whims. The firm’s expertise illuminates the path forward for financial institutions entangled in the Gordian knot of federal and state regulations. Through a bespoke blend of strategic advisory, Ankura empowers these institutions to not only meet the current compliance benchmarks but to anticipate and adapt to the regulatory evolutions on the horizon.

Fostering Growth Through Insight

Beyond the minutiae of compliance, the Ankura vision extends to the broader horizons of growth and sustainability for both financial institutions and cannabis-related businesses. The consultancy’s insights into market trends, consumer behavior, and legislative forecasts act as a beacon for clients navigating the competitive landscape of the cannabis industry. In this capacity, Ankura is more than a guide; it is a partner in cultivation, helping to sow the seeds of long-term success in the fertile ground of opportunity.

A Convergence of Expertise and Innovation

At the heart of the Ankura methodology is a commitment to innovation, a principle that resonates deeply within the cannabis sector. The firm leverages cutting-edge technologies and data analytics to provide solutions that are not only effective but forward-thinking. This approach reflects a broader philosophy: that the challenges of today’s cannabis industry are not roadblocks but catalysts for innovation, driving the development of more sophisticated, transparent, and efficient financial services.

And Finally: A Partnership for Progress

Ankura’s role exemplifies the partnership between expertise and ambition. This narrative is an acknowledgment of the critical role that insight, foresight, and strategic guidance play in navigating the complexities of cannabis banking. As cannabis legislation evolves, Ankura’s contributions are a testament to the power of collaboration and knowledge in shaping the future of industries and economies alike.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.