Last month, California’s regulatory agencies charged with writing commercial cannabis rules released new modifications to the final rules proposed in July. The Bureau of Cannabis Control’s (BCC) proposed modifications contained some of the most dramatic changes, including what would effectively be an outright ban on intellectual property licensing for cannabis products—something we are still trying to wrap our heads around due to the seismic effect it would have throughout the industry. The comment period is now closed on the proposed modifications, so now we must wait and see what the BCC decides to do with its final rules in the next few weeks. (To see at our law firm’s comments to BCC on this, go here.)
The proposed rule banning IP licensing agreements is the result of the BCC’s attempt to redefine what constitutes “commercial cannabis activity.” Existing California statutes—which allow the BCC to create and modify cannabis rules—already require that “all commercial cannabis activity shall be conducted between licensees.” So, if you are conducting “commercial cannabis activity” you must have a license to do so. But what truly is “commercial cannabis activity,” and where should the state draw the line?
Current state law defines “commercial cannabis activity” as “includ[ing] the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of cannabis and cannabis products.” That much makes sense—activities that touch the plant or its products fall squarely within a common sense understanding of what activities should require a license from the state. But under the BCC’s new proposed rules, the following would now also constitute commercial cannabis activity:
Distributing cannabis goods for an unlicensed operator seems straightforward. But for the other additions, such a broad reading of the statute would undoubtedly sweep many activities within this prohibition that in fact have little or nothing to do with actual cannabis activity. For example:
It’s not clear exactly why the BCC believes these rule modifications are necessary or justified; it only states in its notice of modifications that it had been made aware “that licensees may be engaging in such conduct” as would now be prohibited by the new rules. It’s also unclear whether the BCC will stick with these changes or discard them based on feedback received during the comment period—only time will tell.