Misguided Focus: The Rise of "High THC"
How Lab Shopping Happens: From Grower to Dispensary
Timeline: A Brief History of THC Fraud in the US
Pre-2016:
Cannabis markets showed anecdotal signs of THC inflation and preferential laboratory selection (a.k.a. “lab shopping”) but lacked systematic verification or regulatory standards. No validated federal testing methods existed.
2016:
Independent testing in Colorado and Washington revealed THC inflation of up to 30%.
2017:
Nevada regulators identified discrepancies in THC results across labs; initial signs of manipulation emerged.
2018:
Whistleblower lawsuits in Nevada accused licensed labs of knowingly inflating THC values and misrepresenting contamination risk.
2019:
Dispensaries in California and Oregon were found to consistently overstate THC on product labels compared to third-party lab retests.
2020:
Whistleblowers in California exposed widespread use of non-representative “hero samples” to game potency results.
Statistical analysis of Washington’s cannabis lab data showed inter-lab THC variability exceeding 5%, with systematic inflation at certain labs.
2021:
Analytical reviews showed cannabis flower labeled as 30% THC often contained only 20–24%. This mismatch was identified as both intentional fraud and methodological failure.
2022:
The DEA released its Cannabinoid Inflation Whitepaper, confirming systemic lab fraud and calling for mandatory auditing, secret shopper programs, and a national validation standard.
Massachusetts lab MCR Labs filed lawsuits against eight rival labs, alleging they deliberately inflated THC values and issued misleading COAs to win market share.
2023:
The Los Angeles Times conducted a deep-dive investigation uncovering widespread lab shopping, inflated potency labels, and lax state oversight in California.
Consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against Dreamfields Brands Inc. (Jeeter) for overstating THC potency by up to 100%, alleging fraud and false advertising.
Valley Greens Retail Outlet filed a lawsuit against Savage Enterprises, accusing them of mislabeling THC content and engaging in unfair business practices.
California regulators issued citations and suspended several lab licenses. The Department of Cannabis Control proposed mandatory off-the-shelf testing and secret shopper audits.
Peer-reviewed publication introduced the Peer-review Blinded Assay Test (P-BAT), a decentralized, trustless model for state lab verification through blinded inter-lab retesting.
2024:
California and other states began drafting new lab accreditation rules requiring third-party method validation and standardized THC quantification procedures.
"No testing would be better than what we do today"- Cannabis Lab Founder
Source: Boston Globe Article
How to Combat Cannabis Fraud
What Defines Cannabis Quality
References/Suggested Further Reading
1. Diggama Consulting. (2024, March 13). White Paper: Solutions to Cannabinoid Inflation. Drug Enforcement Administration.
2. Schwabe, A. L., Johnson, V., Harrelson, J., & McGlaughlin, M. E. (2023). Uncomfortably high: Testing reveals inflated THC potency on retail cannabis labels. PLOS ONE, 18(4), e0282396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282396
3. Cash, M. C., Cunnane, K., Fan, C., & Romero-Sandoval, E. A. (2020). Mapping cannabis potency in medical and recreational programs in the United States. PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0230167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230167
4. Pruyn, S. A., Wang, Q., Wu, C. G., & Taylor, C. L. (2022). Quality standards in state programs permitting cannabis for medical use. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 7(6), 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2021.0164
5. Sarma, N. D., Waye, A., ElSohly, M. A., & et al. (2020). Cannabis inflorescence for medical purposes: USP considerations for quality attributes. Journal of Natural Products, 83(5), 1334–1351. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b01200
6. Procter, S., Baird, G. L., & Iannuccilli, J. (2025). Peer-review Blinded Assay Test (P-BAT): A framework for trustless laboratory quality assurance. Journal of Cannabis Research, 7, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-025-00261-3
7. Armour, S. (2024). Honest labs say they can’t compete in cannabis industry dominated by inflated THC. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/for-marijuana-users-even-legalization-doesnt-guarantee-safety-ef1660a5?msockid=22b92c22ae346b57364521f7afe46ac6
8. Seltenrich, N. (2019). Cannabis contaminants: Regulating solvents, microbes, and metals in legal weed. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(8), 82001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5785
9. Are Nevada’s Cannabis Labs Counting Cards Toth, J. (2022, June 21). 8 Ways Corrupt Cannabis Labs cheat the numbers (and you). Medium. https://medium.com/cannabis-explorations/8-ways-corrupt-cannabis-labs-cheat-the-numbers-and-you-bc552dd360b7
10. Burning Questions plague cannabis industry Gardener, H., Wallin, C., & Bowen, J. (2022). Heavy metal and phthalate contamination and labeling integrity in a large sample of US commercially available cannabidiol (CBD) products. The Science of the Total Environment, 851, 158110–158110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158110
11. C&EN editorial staff. (2024). Cannabis testing needs a culture change. C & EN Global Enterprise, 102(28), 2–2. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-10228-editorial
12. Cannabis Testing Lab Farud can be Curbed Thomas;, R. (2019, October 24). Beyond potency: The importance of measuring elemental contaminants in cannabis and Hemp. Cannabis Science Tech. https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/beyond-potency-importance-measuring-elemental-contaminants-cannabis-and-hemp
13. Black, L. (2021, June 29). America’s pot labs have a THC problem. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-pot-labs-have-a-thc-problem/
14. St. John, P., Greene, S., & Elebee, L. I. (2024, December 19). Search your stash: 538 cannabis pesticide tests show what’s in your weed. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-12-19/we-tested-cannabis-products-for-pesticides-how-dirty-is-your-weed
15. Dinger, M. (2025, January 10). Cannabis testing still problematic. Oklahoma Gazette. https://www.okgazette.com/news/cannabis-testing-still-problematic-7882349
16. Jikomes, N., Zoorob, M. The Cannabinoid Content of Legal Cannabis in Washington State Varies Systematically Across Testing Facilities and Popular Consumer Products. Sci Rep 8, 4519 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22755-2
17. Branfalt, T. (2025, February 17). Lawsuit by Massachusetts Cannabis Testing Lab claims rivals inflate THC results, ignore contaminant “safety fails” - ganjapreneur. Ganjapreneur.com. https://www.ganjapreneur.com/lawsuit-by-massachusetts-cannabis-testing-lab-claims-rivals-inflate-thc-results-ignore-contaminant-safety-fails/
18. Centeno et al v Dreamfields Brands Inc et al (Superior court of the State of California County of Los Angeles 2022). https://www.classaction.org/media/centeno-et-al-v-dreamfields-brands-inc-et-al.pdf
19. MCR Labs, LLC v. Analytics Labs, LLC et al (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sulfolk County January 30, 2025). https://cdn.grove.wgbh.org/28/69/2643ed5349288f0a03ad5342dcd6/250130-mcr-testing-lab-fraud-lawsuit-against-safevtiva-cdx-green-valley-kaycha-assured-and-more-full-complaint-pdf.pdf
Cannabis Cate
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.