This post is reprinted with permission from Sue’s Substack, by Sue Rusche.
Both complaints say that all four companies market and promote their marijuana products to an unsuspecting public by making health claims backed by pseudoscience, while refusing to warn consumers of the very real dangers of marijuana backed by legitimate science.
The complaints allege that the four companies promote their products as “safe and effective” when they know or should have known that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved a single medical marijuana or recreational marijuana product anywhere in the US.
Both complaints present a flurry of meta-analyses of individual studies showing that marijuana can cause psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidal ideation, depression, PTSD, anxiety, heart disease, hyperemesis (“scromiting,” a combination of screaming and vomiting that can last for several days), and addiction, among other illnesses.
(A meta-analysis is how scientists build consensus. If one study shows a drug can cause Problem X in 100 people and scientists can find 50 studies involving thousands or millions of people who use the drug and have Problem X, you can be fairly certain that the drug is causing Problem X.)
Moreover, the complaints offer multiple examples of the ways in which these companies try to hide scientific consensus by making many false claims on their websites, in their dispensaries, and on social media about marijuana’s “health effects.”
The complaint against Curaleaf, for example, describes how Curaleaf established a U.K. Medical Cannabis Registry which uses industry data from European cannabis companies to publish studies touting the benefits of cannabis. Curaleaf says it considers registry research to “be strategically important in the future education of patients, public, and healthcare professionals.”
Researchers using data from the registry often cite researchers employed by the Medical Cannabis Research Group of the Imperial College of London. The complaint reveals that the research group is headed by Dr. Mikael Sodergren, who also happens to be the chief medical director of Curaleaf International.
A study he coauthored, which found that marijuana improved life for marijuana users, turned out to be a survey involving 34 participants of whom 29 used the drug prior to participating in the survey.
Both complaints display how the websites of all four companies work hard to promote marijuana as “health focused,” instead of a danger to health.
For their multi-state class action, plaintiffs assert a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as several counts in the state where they operate.
For their state subclass actions, plaintiffs allege that many state laws are violated, such as unfair trade practices, unlawful advertising, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment among others.
Both complaints request jury trials.