Chasing Cannabis: The Compliance Technology Behind the Markets
“Seed-to-sale” compliance technology is enabling state regulators and commercial marijuana retailers to keep a tight rein on cannabis products. But the rapidly evolving tech is far from perfect.
January 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Marijuana |
For all the talk about the law lagging behind innovation, there is one area where technology is racing to catch up with the law: regulated state cannabis markets.
The birth and growth of cannabis compliance technology is, for the most part, a result of the legal and regulatory foundations upon which modern legal cannabis markets were built. And it is an area defined by ever-growing innovation to meet the demands of state regulators and commercial cannabis clients.
Many trace the need for such compliance technology to the 2013 Obama-era “Cole Memo,” which declared that states with legalized recreational and medical marijuana markets would be essentially untouched by federal prosecutors, provided they had a robust regulatory and enforcement structure in place.
States responded by implementing “seed-to-sale” compliance systems, which aim to track cannabis products from cultivation all the way through retail sale to ensure oversight and prevent products from reaching the black market.
Though the memo was rescinded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2018, it was far from the only guidance mandating that state governments have cannabis tracking capabilities.
Michael Stalbaum, senior vice president of marketing and operations for seed-to-sale platform KIND Financial, noted that guidance from the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network on how cannabis businesses should operate, for instance, “relies heavily on the seed-to-sale” tracking abilities.
More importantly, states that have legal recreational cannabis markets have codified the need for “seed-to-sale” tracking in their own cannabis laws as well.
Bryan Meltzer, partner at Feuerstein Kulick, called seed-to-sale compliance tech “a big part of the cannabis industry” and noted that states will even certify and designate compliance technology as a must-have platform for local marijuana businesses.
Such seed-to-sale compliance technology is similar to that used in the pharmaceutical and medical industry to keep track of prescriptions drugs. Seed-to-sale compliance platform BioTrackTHC, for example, tracks cannabis products through assigning a 16-digit bar code to a marijuana seed before it is planted.
“The bar code is carried with the product all the way through to the final sale to the customer and creates essentially an unbroken lineage chain of that particular product,” said Jeff Gonring, director of marketing and communications at BioTrackTHC. “So it tells you who grew it, where the seed came from, who produced it, who transported it, who processed it, who sold it, and who bought it.”
BioTrackTHC has won contracts in numerous states, including New Mexico, Washington, New York and Illinois, to be the designated compliance technology local recreational or medical cannabis businesses must use in their operations. Though each state has a different criteria of what it's looking for in compliance technology, Gonring explained that generally, most want a platform that can prevent “diversion and inversion, access by unintended minors, and maintain transparency and accountability over the chain of custody for the plants full growth life cycle and transaction history.”
He credits BioTrackTHC winning state contracts due in part to its “closed looped system,” which means “you can't bring a plant or a product into any licensed business unless it has a bar code that could be tracked previously to that.”
Of course, the ability to track commercial products is not unique to just one company. All seed-to-sale platforms have to have a certain standards of tracking functionality. But where platforms differ is on the types of innovation they offer beyond their core functions.
In addition to conventional tracking, for example, KIND Financial uses tagging beacons and video surveillance to allow customers to “tell exactly where their plant is within their operations” and warehouses, Stalbaum said.
What's more, in 2016, KIND Financial became the first seed-to-sale compliance software to team up with Microsoft, which now hosts KIND's platform its the Azure cloud service.
“We were one of the first people to really take it to that level and get the power of Microsoft behind our hosting,” Stalbaum said.
Meanwhile, Biotrack has invested in data reporting capabilities to allow commercial and government clients to get a deeper understanding of cannabis product supply chains. Gonring explained the platform offers everything “from blind audits to detailed forensics reports” in order to provide “accountability for every single user accessing the system's inventory or supply-chain.”
The Ones That Get Away
Despite such innovations, seed-to-sale compliance technology is far from perfect. From time to time, there have been cannabis products that found their way outside regulated state markets and borders.
In November 2017, for example, a man who owned a licensed marijuana processing company in Oregon was arrested in Nebraska—a state without legalized cannabis laws—with 110 pounds of marijuana extract, on suspicion of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
For Stalbaum, such incidents underlie the reality that there are “always, unfortunately, ways to manipulate” regulated markets. However, he believes that compliance technology is getting better at putting more security controls in place to make these incidents less common.
Stalbaum also pointed out that these incidents could arise because some states' seed-to-sale tracking requirements are less stringent than others. “Some of the problem is state to state,” he said. “Some states require batch tracking, so you're tracking a batch of products, instead of each product specifically.”
Some, however, see the problem not as a sign of weak regulation but of inadequate technology.
Seed-to-sale startup 420 Blockchain, for example, believes such incidents can be mitigated through the use of blockchain technology, which can create impermeable record-keeping, to better track cannabis products. “Blockchain is irrefutable,” said Michael Kramer, co-founder of 420 Blockchain. “Once it has entered, it cannot be changed.”
Of course, unchangeable records may be a double-edged prospect when accounting for human error. If ever mistakes were made on blockchain entries, for example, it could be difficult, or impossible, to fix them.
Kramer, though, notes that the 420 Blockchain platform, which was released as a public beta in January 2018, will require two-factor authentication before an entry can be input into the system, thereby cutting down the chance that an entry will be made erroneously.
In addition to its tracking platform, 420 Blockchain is also developing a separate smart contract product that will code and automatically execute contracts on the blockchain between various cannabis companies. Initially though, the effort will require a fair amount of hand-holding.
420 Blockchain “will verify all those contracts and walk the customer through” coding the contracts in order to prevent errors, Kramer said.
Whether blockchain technology will become a staple of future marijuana compliance technology remains to be seen. But it's certain that the market for cannabis compliance innovation is just getting started.
Given that market for compliance technology will only grow as new state cannabis markets come online in the near future, “it does feel early in the industry on the innovation side,” Meltzer said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 2Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 3Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
- 42 Carter Arnett Litigators to Join Baker & Hostetler in Dallas
- 5People in the News—Nov. 27, 2024—Flaster Greenberg, Tucker Arensberg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250