Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wiener’s SB 378 targets online marketplaces selling intoxicating hemp and unlicensed cannabis; committee advances bill
Summary
SB 378 would create strict liability for online marketplaces that facilitate the sale of intoxicating hemp or unlicensed cannabis products in California; the subcommittee advanced the measure to Judiciary with reported votes in favor and committee members highlighted enforcement gaps in online sales.
Senator Wiener presented SB 378 to hold online marketplaces accountable for advertising or facilitating sales of intoxicating hemp or unlicensed cannabis products to California consumers.
Wiener said illicit and untested intoxicating hemp products are widely available online without age verification or testing, undercutting the legal, regulated cannabis market. He and supporters said these unregulated products can contain unsafe additives and can be unusually easy for minors to obtain.
Kristen Heidelbach, legislative director at UFCW Western States Council, testified the bill protects jobs and public health by exposing platforms that profit from or promote illicit intoxicants. Timothy Dodd, founder and CEO of Sweetflower, testified that licensed retailers are being undercut by online illicit sales and that legal products are tested for pesticides and contaminants while illicit products are not.
Wiener will accept author’s amendments to clarify that the bill does not apply to payment processors; sponsors said they will propose those amendments before the Judiciary hearing. Opponents included the US Hemp Roundtable and marketplace and industry representatives who urged more precise definitions to avoid sweeping in compliant hemp businesses producing lawful wellness products.
Committee members including Assemblymember Lackey framed the bill as a consumer‑protection measure that also helps preserve the legal cannabis industry; the subcommittee recommended the bill to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The committee recorded support during the hearing and later reported the item as advancing with 13 votes in favor.
