Cannabis Compliance Tools Have an Audience—But Is It a Paying One?
Players in the cannabis industry need to successfully comply with a complex variety of state regulations to stay in business, but for many in the space, a technological assist with that process may be considered a luxury they can't afford.
November 05, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
For developers of compliance technology, the relative newness of the cannabis industry may spur a great deal of interest in products that can help new—and even some longstanding—entrants to the market navigate the maze of various state regulations at play.
But there are still some very serious questions around whether or not those same cannabis providers are willing to fork over the cash for such tools just yet.
Amanda Ostrowitz, founder of the compliance platform CannaRegs, said that whereas the privacy arena has witnessed enough enforcement to keep companies on their toes, many of the entities operating in the cannabis industry still consider compliance to be an expense rather than something that is central to the ongoing health of their business.
"Right now it's very hard to get these businesses to shell out the money that's necessary. What they are willing to pay today isn't nothing, but it's probably not enough for any great pieces of [compliance] technology to be able to be built," Ostrowitz said.
However, that doesn't mean the need for regulatory compliance tools in the cannabis space is nonexistent, or that there aren't tech providers who are willing to jump into the game.
Simplifya, for example, is a regulatory compliance tool built specifically for the cannabis industry, walking users through a series of yes and no questions to help pinpoint potential conflicts with state laws. John Vardaman, the company's general counsel, said a variety of compliance tools have already cropped up within the space.
"Precisely because the [cannabis] industry presents so much risk but also opportunity, you have seen this growth of new technologies pouring into the space … You don't always get the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of an industry of this potential size and scale," Vardaman said.
However, more than just the opportunity the cannabis industry affords right now, the demand for compliance tech also benefits from the need for a comprehensive understanding of regulations that exist squarely at the state or local level absent a federal standard.
Vardaman indicated those laws can often vary wildly from state to state, and while he expects some uniformity to eventually emerge as the result of time, a perfect harmony is unlikely.
Ostrowitz referred to cannabis as a hyper-local law problem, with different cities and counties also having their own set of rules. CannaRegs aggregates regulatory data with regards to issues like zoning or taxation from each of those jurisdictions to help users stay abreast of the law.
"[Cannabis is] one of those things that is so fast changing that it certainly creates a need for legal tools around it," Ostrowitz said.
Also fueling the need for a potential tech assist is the challenge that compliance may pose to incumbents who may have been active in the cannabis space long before states gave such practices the green light.
Vardaman pointed out that for those individuals, the very concept of compliance might be alien, and deviating from longstanding methods of doing business that run counter to new regulations could be a laborious process.
But needing something and being willing to pay for it are two very different things. According to Ostrowitz, there are only a few billion-dollar entities in the cannabis space, with most of that worth being tied up in stock as opposed to liquid cash.
However, compliance tool developers may still find an audience on the other side of the regulatory fence. Ostrowitz thinks regulatory agencies could potentially adopt compliance tools, which given enough time and data could lend greater focus to future investigations.
"There's a lot of room for AI to look at where the biggest risk factors are if they are taking advantage of technology," Ostrowitz 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
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
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