TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: class action

  • Cresco Says Can’t Have Class-Action if No One Was Harmed

    Cresco Says Can’t Have Class-Action if No One Was Harmed

    Cresco Labs submitted a new filing last week, urging an Illinois federal court to dismiss a proposed consumer class action alleging the company mislabeled certain cannabis vape oils to circumvent state THC potency limits. In its latest filing, the company argued that the lawsuit suffers from “fundamental flaws,” emphasizing that no consumer has claimed to have been harmed by purchasing the products at issue.

    The suit alleges Cresco improperly classified some cannabis oils as concentrates rather than cannabis-infused products, a distinction that carries different THC caps and labeling requirements under Illinois law. Cresco disputes this characterization, saying its products complied with state regulations and that disputes over classification and labeling fall under the authority of regulators, not private plaintiffs.

  • Nationwide Pushes Back on Cannabis Coverage, Raising Industry Concerns

    Nationwide Pushes Back on Cannabis Coverage, Raising Industry Concerns

    A Nationwide insurance subsidiary told an Illinois federal court that a cannabis company is not entitled to coverage for a proposed class action accusing it of misrepresenting the safety and labeling of cannabis-infused products, according to ClassAction.org. The insurer argues that the cannabis company’s liability policies do not cover allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceptive practices.

    The underlying lawsuits allege that certain cannabis products—including vape oils marketed as concentrates—were mislabeled to bypass Illinois’ stricter THC limits and misled consumers about potency and safety. Plaintiffs argue the practices violated state consumer protection laws and exposed buyers to unsafe products.

    The Nationwide filing underscores the growing challenges cannabis firms face in securing reliable insurance protection as litigation risks mount. If the court agrees, the cannabis company will be forced to bear defense costs itself, a potentially costly outcome in an industry already grappling with regulatory complexity.