February 20, 2026
Across the U.S., a major compliance fault line widened in 2024–2025: products marketed as “hemp‑derived,” “naturally occurring,” or “all‑natural” while their intoxicating or “minor cannabinoid” active ingredients were produced via chemical conversion (often starting from CBD isolate).
At the same time, many states tightened (or clarified) rules that treat “chemically converted,” “artificially derived,” or “synthetic” cannabinoids as prohibited in general retail channels—or permissible only under narrow conditions. That created a predictable litigation pattern:
This post is a multi-state, claim‑substantiation playbook for brands selling products containing delta‑8, delta‑10, HHC, THCP, THC‑O (where still at issue), CBN variants, or other “minor cannabinoids” where origin and processing method matter.
Informational only—not legal advice.
Even where a product can be lawfully sold under a state’s hemp framework, advertising law still applies. Under general U.S. advertising principles, marketers must have competent and reliable evidence for objective claims and must avoid net-impression deception.
Two federal enforcement trends matter for origin claims:
Also relevant: FDA warning letters have reiterated the agency’s view that delta‑8 in foods can render products adulterated as unsafe food additives. Example FDA warning letter (Earthly Hemps, July 15, 2024): https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/earthly-hemps-674916-07152024
The takeaway for marketing teams: regulatory legality and claim defensibility are separate questions.
In 2025, the state landscape is messy but the direction is clear: more jurisdictions are drawing a line between:
A few examples that illustrate the multi‑state risk map:
New York’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) has a comprehensive Cannabinoid Hemp Program with licensing, testing, packaging/labeling requirements, and guidance documents that are frequently updated. Official program page: https://cannabis.ny.gov/cannabinoid-hemp
OCM also publishes licensee guidance (revised Oct 2024) that addresses compliance expectations including testing disclosure mechanisms (often via QR/link to COA). Guidance PDF: https://cannabis.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/10/cannabinoid-hemp-regulations-guidance-for-licensees_v2.pdf
For marketers, New York is a signal state: when rules explicitly disallow certain “artificially derived” cannabinoids, advertising a prohibited product as “hemp‑derived” can stack risk: regulatory plus deceptive advertising.
Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) requires regulated hemp product retail facility registration beginning November 15, 2024, for entities selling regulated hemp products intended for human consumption. Official VDACS enforcement page: https://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/food-hemp-product-enforcement.shtml
Virginia’s regulatory model matters for claims because it’s built around enforceable retail gatekeeping. If your product portfolio depends on “hemp‑derived” positioning, you need a state-by-state retail eligibility analysis.
Washington’s approach (SB 5367 effective July 23, 2023) effectively channels products with any detectable THC into the state-licensed system. A useful overview: https://www.wilsonelser.com/publications/washington-states-aggressive-approach-to-preventing-intoxicating-hemp-cannabinoids-may-be-adopted-in-other-states
This is a prime example of where an “it’s hemp-derived” ad message can be misleading if the consumer reasonably interprets “hemp-derived” to mean lawful in general retail.
Colorado’s SB 23‑271 gives the state power to authorize or prohibit chemical modification, conversion, or synthetic derivation of cannabinoids. Signed bill text (PDF): https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_271_signed.pdf
Colorado is notable because it elevates “conversion” into a compliance issue, not merely an advertising nuance.
Oregon regulators drew a bright line for artificially derived CBN. Oregon OLCC Compliance Education Bulletin CE2025‑05 states that beginning July 1, 2025 products containing artificially derived CBN cannot be sold to consumers unless the CBN manufacturer has made a GRAS determination or submitted an NDIN and received FDA “no objections.” Official bulletin (PDF): https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/Bulletins/CE2025-05-CBN.pdf
Even if your product focus is not CBN, Oregon demonstrates a broader trend: process-based distinctions are migrating into enforceable sales restrictions.
California’s Department of Public Health (CDPH) adopted emergency rules in 2024 that significantly limited hemp ingredients in foods, beverages, and dietary supplements—triggering litigation and continued rulemaking discussion. A detailed industry legal analysis: https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/blogs/cannabis-and-the-law/2024/october/new-california-emergency-hemp-regulations-draw-the-ire-of-national-hemp-trade-group-and-notorious-st/
For advertisers, California is a caution: rules can shift quickly and “hemp-derived” claims can become stale overnight.
NAD is a self-regulatory forum (run by BBB National Programs) where competitors can challenge advertising. While NAD does not impose fines, its decisions can drive fast changes—especially for brands dependent on major retailers and mainstream payment channels.
For “natural” and “origin” claims, NAD decisions repeatedly show a consistent theme: if an ingredient is significantly processed, “100% natural” claims are hard to defend.
A representative example (non-cannabinoid context) often cited in ad-law circles: NAD recommended discontinuing a “100% natural” claim where the ingredient required substantial processing. See discussion: https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/national-advertising-division-issues-decision-on-100-natural-satiety-and-curbing-cravings-claims
Apply that reasoning here:
Based on 2025 patterns, expect challenges to:
Litigation in this space typically clusters into a few allegation themes:
Plaintiffs argue they paid a premium for “hemp-derived” or “natural” positioning, but the active ingredient was produced through chemical conversion without meaningful disclosure.
A major category of suits allege products marketed as delta‑8 contained delta‑9 above legal thresholds or otherwise differed from label claims. Example commentary on mislabeling litigation: https://core.verisk.com/Insights/Emerging-Issues/Articles/2025/January/Week-2/Mislabeling-of-Delta-8-Products
A legal alert discussing similar class action risks (Illinois filings): https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/delta8_product_manufacturers_should_be_aware_consumer_class_action_risks_0424.html
Even when potency is accurate, “all natural” can be attacked if manufacturing requires chemical conversion steps that a reasonable consumer would view as synthetic.
Some claims also target failure to implement reasonable QA—e.g., not requiring processors to provide pathway documentation or impurity profiles.
The term “hemp‑derived” is used in at least three ways:
Most consumer disputes arise because marketing uses the term in sense (3) while sourcing only supports (2).
Operational takeaway: create an internal definition policy for “hemp‑derived” claims and use it consistently across:
If your product’s active ingredient is produced by converting hemp-derived CBD into another cannabinoid, consider qualified phrasing such as:
Avoid burying this in hard-to-find PDFs. Disclosures should be proximate to the claim, not hidden behind multiple clicks.
In 2025, “all natural” remains one of the most litigated and NAD-scrutinized claim categories across CPG. If your process includes conversion, isomerization, catalysts, or significant refinement, unqualified natural claims are high-risk.
Safer alternatives (still requiring substantiation):
A common enforcement and litigation trigger is mismatch between:
Examples of mismatch risk:
Best practice: standardize naming conventions across your regulated label, COA landing page, and ecommerce copy.
If you buy distillate/isolate from upstream processors, you need documentation that can support advertising claims.
Add (or tighten) supply chain clauses requiring:
This is not just about regulatory enforcement—it’s the difference between winning and losing a competitor challenge on substantiation.
Your ad claims should not be identical in every state if your distribution is not identical.
Create a recurring review process that cross-references:
Illustrative compliance signals from official sources:
Because this is multi-state, your compliance team should track three “case lanes” that directly impact marketing claims:
Monitor competitors’ ad positioning shifts. Often, the first sign of a looming NAD challenge is:
Even if you never lose in court, litigation costs can be business-ending. Track pleadings that focus on:
Use this checklist on your top-selling SKUs first.
COA access is increasingly treated as a consumer protection feature (and is explicitly referenced in some state guidance).
Influencers are a major risk vector because they summarize your claims in the most absolute terms.
For ongoing monitoring of multi-state changes, claim-risk alerts, and workflow-ready compliance checklists, use https://www.cannabisregulations.ai/ to centralize your cannabis compliance, licensing, and advertising-risk intelligence—so your product pages and campaigns keep up with fast-moving regulations.
