FLŌRA, the cannabis store on Park Street in downtown Middlebury, has filed a lawsuit against the Vermont Cannabis Control Board (CCB) over cannabis advertisement regulations it claims are unconstitutional. In the suit filed in Addison Superior Court on Dec. 9, 2024, FLŌRA argued that Vermont businesses are being harmed financially by the restrictive regulations and requirements for advertisement approval, infringing upon their right to free speech.
Under Vermont Law, all cannabis stores must submit their advertisements to the CCB for approval before they can be published. This process ensures that ads do not appeal to or endanger the health of younger audiences — content featuring cartoons and candy, for example, are often rejected. According to the law, cannabis establishments must not advertise their products at all unless they can prove that no more than 15% of their customer base is expected to be under 21 years of age. Advertisements must also contain health warnings adopted by the control board.
The rules for approval require cannabis businesses to submit their proposed advertisements to the CCB, which must notify the business of their decision within 10 business days. The control board can deny, approve, or request additional information from the business. If the advertisement is denied, a business can revise it and resubmit for approval.
While the Chair of Cannabis Control Board James Pepper acknowledged that the law can be restrictive, he said that regulations are necessary for the safety of the community. Although wait time for approval on advertisements can impact a company financially, the CCB maintains that their reviews and frequent denials of advertisements are sparing the businesses administrative penalties down the line.
“I think that's that was the kind of calculus that the legislature was weighing, when it decided to have pre-approval, and that’s just one aspect,” Pepper said.
Dave Silberman, co-founder of FLŌRA, argued that these restrictions hinder cannabis business’ ability to operate effectively and that the current guidelines are unsustainable. Their primary concern lies in how many forms of promotion qualify as advertisement.
The CCB received 29 advertising submissions in September from Vermont cannabis businesses and nine were denied, primarily because their health warnings were missing or unclear. The Board received 34 complaints that month, and five were advertising-related, according to a Jan. 15 report from the state board.
“Vermont's advertising law says that any statement, depiction, or illustration in any medium is considered an advertisement,” Silberman said in an interview with The Campus. “The signs that I put up in my store are an advertisement — emails, social media posts, direct messages. So, it's extremely wide ranging, and a lot of restrictions apply.”
According to Pepper, the Cannabis Control Board is not always capable of tracking every cannabis advertisement. Although regulations suggest that social media posts must be pre-approved, they are less easily monitored than physical advertisements and businesses often post about sales or discounts without approval.
“I think we have over 600 licensed businesses, and it’s very challenging to keep track of everyone’s social media,” Pepper said. “We have very clear guidance around this, and so it's really a complaint driven on the social media side. Also, Facebook and some of the larger platforms are keeping an eye out for cannabis advertisements because they ban them as part of their policies. So there's an additional check there, but, really, it's just very hard to stay in front of.”
Silberman, the FLŌRA co-founder, said that there are likely hundreds of social media posts daily from cannabis businesses that are never submitted for approval.
“Anytime somebody posts on social media without getting that prior approval they're exposing themselves to substantial fines,” Silberman said. “And so everyone's taking a very big risk.”
His business argued that the law directly harms local Vermont cannabis businesses, as customers unaware of their services may turn to national brands, online companies or dispensaries in nearby states to buy their products, which also impacts customers and their safety.
“Those people are not subject to any of the advertisement restrictions that I am. And so Vermont retailers like FLŌRA are losing customers to out-of-state and national brands,” Silberman said. “And those consumers are losing out on the consumer safety aspects that Vermont's regulated market provides because we don't have any idea how those other products are tested and what is and is not allowed to go in them.”
Additionally, under Vermont law, dispensaries cannot have more than one location. This makes advertising even more critical for cannabis businesses competing with national brands, according to Silberman.
“We operate like a small business, so we don’t have full marketing teams or extensive planning. If we were to have these marketing teams we could plan in advance and accordingly to the approval timeline. But because of how dispensaries operate in Vermont, we cannot think that far in advance and we do not have entire teams to handle it,” Silberman said.
The CCB’s Jan. 15 report acknowledged these difficulties.
“Vermont-based businesses must comply with state advertising regulations, while competitors from neighboring states, advertising to the same regional audiences, do not. This disparity particularly affects retailers near state borders, who are unable to market as broadly as out-of-state operators located just a few miles away,” the report read.
However, the report concluded that easing restrictions may improve the market for Vermont operators, it could also increase risks to public health and youth exposure to cannabis.
“Any changes to these laws will require careful consideration to balance the interests of industry growth with the state’s commitment to public health and equity,” the report said.
The lawsuit is ongoing, with the Assistant Attorney General of Vermont currently drafting a response to FLŌRA’s complaint.
Editor’s Note: Managing Editor Madeleine Kaptein ’25.5 contributed reporting to this article.
