The cannabis laws of the 2025 California legislative session

The 2025 Legislative Session delivered bills to rollback a devastating state tax increase, to integrate hemp products into the regulated cannabis framework, to expedite controlled substances research and to stop the online sale of unregulated cannabis and hemp products. Here is a look at this year's cannabis bills that became law, and a couple that did not, representing some of the most sweeping -- and debated -- overhauls to California's cannabis and hemp regulatory landscape since legalization began.

AB 8 (Aguiar-Curry): California's comprehensive hemp-cannabinoid regulatory overhaul

AB 8 delivers a fundamental reset on the rules for hemp-derived cannabinoids. Starting Jan. 1, 2028, any product containing concentrated cannabinoids (except CBD isolate and CBN isolate) derived from industrial hemp must comply with full cannabis licensing, testing, and safety standards under MAUCRSA. Major elements of the legislation include:

● A new licensing framework that applies to intoxicating hemp products, resolving years of confusion around "hemp THC" products on the open market.

● Strict bans on most synthetic, inhalable, or psychoactive hemp products and strong restrictions on what forms are permitted in foods and beverages.

● Expanded authority for state and local enforcement (including seizure/quarantine powers and targeted destruction of non-compliant goods).

● Clear track-and-trace requirements for new product categories entering the legal cannabis market, with all data fully captured in the state's system.

● Temporary restrictions (until 2028) on the use of industrial hemp by licensed manufacturers, focusing on transition integrity and regulatory ramp-up.

Supporters believe AB 8 will protect youth and public health, level the playing field for compliant cannabis businesses, and curb the proliferation of high-potency hemp THC sold in convenience stores and online. Opponents, however, worry about costs for small hemp businesses, with some arguing the bill's complexity could complicate enforcement and compliance further. Fiscal projections estimate significant (multi-million dollar) costs for state enforcement and court systems, but also the possibility of stabilizing the legal market.

SB 378 (Wiener): Closing down illicit cannabis and hemp sales online

Sponsored by Senator Wiener, SB 378 represents a landmark in the digital oversight of cannabis and hemp, responding to the rapid rise of illegal sales on digital and social platforms. Key provisions of the legislation include:

● Mandates online platforms (from major marketplaces to apps and social media) to clearly state in their terms of service whether or not they permit ads or listings from unlicensed sellers.

● Requires platforms to provide an accessible, public reporting mechanism for anyone to flag suspected illicit sales or advertising.

● Imposes civil liability and treble damages (especially where minors are harmed) on platforms that "substantially contribute" to illegal transactions -- regardless of whether they ever physically possess the product -- if they fail to verify licensing or interpose the required warnings.

● Outlaws all "unlawful paid online advertising" for unlicensed cannabis or intoxicating or unregistered hemp products, with strong joint/several liability for consumer harms.

● Stipulates severe penalties (up to $500,000 per violation) and potential court-ordered suspensions for platforms who fail to cure violations.

Supporters -- including labor, local governments, and public health -- argued SB 378 is necessary to protect the legal market and minors from dangerous, untested products. Tech and internet industry groups warned the broad definitions and strict liability could chill innovation and unduly burden many online services. The courts, meanwhile, are bracing for a potential wave of enforcement suits under the new law.

AB 564 (Haney): Relief for licensed cannabis operators -- excise tax reduction

Sponsored by Assemblymember Haney, AB 564 provides significant, but temporary, tax relief, reducing the state excise tax from 19% to 15% from October 2025 until May 2028. The bill is in direct response to economic pressures on legal cannabis operators, including:

● Ongoing price compression in the licensed market as wholesale prices continue to slide -- in large part due to oversupply following COVID-era production surges and recent changes to the cultivation tax structure.

● Declining active cannabis licenses and retail value, with more than half of California's consumption still estimated to come from the illicit market.

In addition to tax reduction, AB 564 delays future scheduled tax increases and mandates robust market, revenue, and tax policy reporting by the Department of Cannabis Control, CDTFA, and Legislative Analyst's Office. Proponents say the measure aligns California's tax rates closer to peer states (like Michigan and Oregon), fighting illicit market dominance; opponents from child welfare and environmental groups worry about lost revenue for programs dedicated by Prop. 64.

AB 1103 (Ward): Streamlining and protecting controlled substances research

AB 1103 addresses a surprising barrier to scientific innovation in California: months-long delays and bureaucratic gridlock at the Research Advisory Panel of California (RAPC) due to open meeting law conflicts and slow review practices. The bill:

● Allows the RAPC to expedite review of federally approved and peer-reviewed cannabis and psychedelic research proposals, assigning smaller groups of expert panelists for faster approval decisions.

● Temporarily extends exemptions from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (until 2028) for sensitive RAPC discussions involving intellectual property and trade secrets, making meetings more confidential and reducing public notice requirements.

● Enables asynchronous consultation among panel members, ending months-long lags between formal meetings.

The changes follow public complaints of California researchers losing funding or abandoning projects due to wait times, with supporters citing urgent need for timely studies on substance use disorder, mental health and conditions like PTSD. Critics, largely from law enforcement, worry the changes will reduce oversight and transparency on research using controlled substances. However, almost all research and medical communities support the reforms as vital for California's scientific leadership.

Governor Newsom vetoed two cannabis bills this legislative session

After surviving the gauntlets of both legislative chambers, these two cannabis bills still did not manage to get the governor's approval: a bill to expand authority for local governments to obtain liens to enforce against illegal cannabis, and a bill allowing for direct-to-patient medical cannabis shipping.

AB 632 (Hart): Expanded local lien authority for enforcement

AB 632 would have granted cities and counties new explicit powers to record property liens for unpaid fines related to illegal cannabis grows, substandard housing, and fire code violations, but only after exhaustion of administrative/judicial appeals and strict notice requirements. Rural counties and law enforcement supported the measure, arguing existing penalty statutes were inadequate against large-scale illegal cultivation and health threats. Opposition led by the Western Center on Law and Poverty highlighted risks to homeowner rights, cautioning against removal of judicial review before lien placement, citing real-world cases of excessive fines and threats to low-income and minority homeowners. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, emphasizing the need to balance enforcement against due process, stating "existing law strikes the right balance".​

AB 1332 (Ahrens): Direct-to-patient medicinal cannabis shipping

AB 1332 attempted a narrow fix for vulnerable medical cannabis patients with rare or perishable medicine needs, authorizing select microbusinesses to ship medicinal cannabis by parcel to qualified patients. Supporters cited declining availability of specialized medical cannabis since Prop. 64 and hardship faced by immobile or rural patients. No formal opposition was recorded. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill as overly complex and unworkable for state regulators, due to high projected costs and limited benefits, but left the door open for future access-focused reforms.​

Although this year's session did not feature more than a handful of legislative measures, the bills that did become law, especially AB 8 (Aguiar Curry), are poised to re-shape the supply chains for cannabis and hemp in California.