Supreme Court Ruling Paves the Way for Truck Driver to Seek Treble Damages in THC-CBD Case
The important point we want to make by presenting this article is that it is of utmost importance that individuals, particularly in safety sensitive positions that are regularly drug tested, take extra care in assuring that ingested CBD products have little or no THC in them.
We have previously written about the danger of assuming CBD products do not contain THC here. In our blog post we mention: One of the significant risks associated with CBD oil and drug testing is the potential for product contamination or mislabeling. The CBD industry is not uniformly regulated, which means that some products may contain higher levels of THC than advertised. Even if a product claims to be THC-free, cross-contamination during production or extraction processes can lead to the presence of THC.
Below is a summary of the Supreme Court Ruling. We encourage you to read https://www.liveinsurancenews.com/rules-cannabis-liability-cases/8562041/
in its entirety.
Studies have shown that a significant number of CBD products are mislabeled, with some containing more THC than indicated on the label.
A new legal precedent has been set in the intersection of employment law, cannabis regulation, and consumer protection. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 in favor of truck driver Douglas Horn, allowing him to pursue treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This decision stems from a contentious case surrounding his dismissal after failing a drug test reportedly caused by unknowingly consuming THC in a CBD product. The ruling not only highlights emerging challenges in cannabis-related liabilities but also raises important questions about industry accountability and insurance coverage in this evolving sector.
The truck driver’s case illustrates the stakes involved when those policies collide with the burgeoning market for CBD products, often marketed as containing negligible or no THC. After using a CBD product to address chronic pain from a prior injury, he failed a routine drug test required by his employer, Enterprise Transportation Co., and was subsequently fired. His firing also led his spouse, a co-driver, to resign, compounding the financial fallout.
These enhanced damages are designed to penalize wrongdoing and send a strong message to companies accused of serious misconduct, like misrepresenting CBD product ingredients.
The availability of accurately labeled CBD products, therefore, becomes a critical factor in protecting workers and mitigating legal risks.
The rise of CBD as an alternative to conventional pain management has significantly outpaced federal regulation. While the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp-derived CBD containing less than 0.3% THC, inconsistent product labeling and manufacturing processes continue to blur the lines. Consumers frequently encounter discrepancies between what’s advertised and what a product contains. According to an analysis cited by CRC Insurance, 70% of cannabis-related lawsuits stem from claims of mislabeling or misrepresentation.
The truck driver’s chosen product, Dixie X, was marketed as THC-free. However, after Horn failed his drug test, lab analyses revealed the presence of THC.
Product mislabeling doesn’t just endanger consumers; it creates significant legal exposure for manufacturers. Potential claims range from negligence to fraud, both of which can trigger insurance disputes.
The ripple effects of this case have important implications for insurers that cover cannabis-related businesses.
From an industry perspective, this case serves as a cautionary tale for all parties involved. Manufacturers need stringent quality controls and transparent labeling protocols to reduce liability risks. For insurers, there is an opportunity to educate clients, ensure compliance, and design tailored coverage that addresses these emerging risks without pricing businesses out of the market.
Proponents of the ruling argue that it strengthens consumer protections and holds manufacturers accountable for false claims. Horn’s legal team contends that his case reinforces the importance of truth in advertising and the legal viability of seeking recourse when consumers are harmed.
On the flip side, critics warn against overextending RICO to situations it was not originally designed for. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent echoes industry fears that this expansion creates fertile ground for opportunistic lawsuits. Employers, too, face a precarious balancing act between maintaining drug-free workplaces and navigating the complexities of cannabis-related legal challenges.
Looking ahead, the truck driver’s case is likely to act as a bellwether for similar disputes involving mislabeled cannabis products. The transportation industry, in particular, should be closely monitoring developments, as the case highlights vulnerabilities in their drug-testing and employment practices. Legal teams may start advising trucking companies to revise their policies on permissible CBD usage, while manufacturers may face increased calls for tighter regulation and third-party testing.
For consumers, this serves as a pointed reminder to approach so-called “THC-free” products with caution. Until regulatory safeguards are more robust and industry standards more consistent, the burden of due diligence remains disproportionately on buyers.
James P. Randisi, President of Randisi & Associates, Inc., has been helping employers protect their clients, workforce and reputation through implementation of employment screening and drug testing programs since 1999. This post does not constitute legal advice. Randisi & Associates, Inc. is not a law firm. Always contact competent employment legal counsel. To learn more about the rights of employees who test positive for marijuana, Mr. Randisi can be contacted by phone at 410.494.0232 or Email: info@randisiandassociates.com or the website at randisiandassociates.com
