Understanding Local Regulations

The newly released 2024 Dutch cannabis retail report, commissioned by the Scientific Research and Data Center (WODC) of the Ministry of Justice and Security and conducted by Breuer&Intraval, provides a data-driven view of the coffeeshop market and municipal policies across the Netherlands. Map: coffeeshop density by municipality, end-2024. Colors show residents per shop; grey = none. The Dutch cannabis retail landscape in 2024 shows regulatory stability with evolving challenges and opportunities. Key insights: • 556 tolerated coffeeshops open across 103 municipalities at end-2024, continuing a stabilizing trend since 2017. A new municipality joined the coffeeshop-hosting list for the first time since 2010. • By type: 66% consumption coffeeshops and 26% takeaway. • Municipal policies largely apply the AHOJGI criteria. The residents-only I-criterion appears in 79% of municipalities and is rarely monitored with high priority at 2%. • Enforcement uses graduated sanction ladders. The most common violation is exceeding the maximum trade quantity. In 2023–2024, authorities recorded 38 violations across 15 municipalities and imposed 16 sanctions in six of them. • External factors: 13% of municipalities reported effects from the smoking-room ban, noting coffeeshops are increasingly used as takeaway locations. The closed-chain experiment (EGC) was discussed in 21% of municipalities and influenced policy in 13%. Germany’s new rules were discussed in 7%, with 3% reporting consequences such as monitoring visitor flows and policy reflection. • About 31% of municipalities with coffeeshops, 32 in total, intend to revise licensing procedures toward more transparent and objective allocation systems. The Dutch market remains a case study in how a mature, legally tolerated cannabis sector maintains regulatory rigor while adapting to social and cross-border dynamics. Source: https://lnkd.in/dHMRHNqM

The EU just published its official guidance on the Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and more businesses than expected are impacted. The European Commission has released a 57-page guidance document clarifying how Regulation (EU) 2025/40 will work in practice. With the regulation applying from 12 August 2026, the clock is ticking. Here's what businesses should know: → What counts as "packaging" is broader than you think. IV bags, candle containers, and adhesive process films may be excluded but dust bags for shoes and garments, flower pots sold with plants, and beverage cups filled at point of sale are likely in scope. → Know whether you're a "manufacturer" or a "producer." These are two distinct roles with very different obligations. Manufacturers are responsible for sustainability and labelling compliance across the EU. Producers handle extended producer responsibility (EPR) fees in whichever Member State the packaging becomes waste. → PFAS in food-contact packaging is banned from August 2026 with no transitional period for existing stock placed on the market after that date. → Re-use targets kick in from 2030, covering transport, beverage, and sales packaging. At least 40% of transport packaging must be reusable by then. For beverages, final distributors must offer at least 10% in reusable packaging. → Deposit Return Systems must be operational by 2029, targeting 90% separate collection of plastic bottles and metal cans. → Labelling rules are being harmonised and national sorting labels will no longer be permitted alongside EU harmonised labels from August 2028. The guidance is non-binding but reflects the Commission's interpretation. Businesses that move early will be far better placed when enforcement begins. #ppwr #packaging #sustainability #circulareconomy #euregulation #esg #compliance

🚨 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗣𝗪𝗥 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 Today the European Commission published its guidance document for the PPWR, alongside a comprehensive set of FAQs addressing the questions raised by stakeholders since the Regulation entered into force in February 2025. The FAQs are published in their first edition and will be updated on a rolling basis. On definitions, the guidance clarifies who is a manufacturer and who is a producer, two concepts that serve entirely different legal functions under the PPWR. The manufacturer, typically the brand owner or the entity that decides on packaging design specifications, is responsible for conformity with the sustainability and labelling requirements, and there is only one per packaging unit across the EU. The producer is identified market by market and carries the EPR obligations in the Member State where packaging is first made available. On branches: a branch without separate legal personality cannot qualify as an importer under the PPWR. Non-EU companies relying on EU branches will need to incorporate a subsidiary or, where required by the relevant Member State, appoint an authorised representative. On the definition of packaging, inclusion in Annex I is not sufficient and the functional test under Article 3(1) always prevails. IV bags and pre-filled syringes are excluded as they form an integral part of the medicinal product. Beverage cups sold empty to consumers are not packaging, but become service packaging when filled at a refill station. Dust bags for shoes and garments may qualify depending on their intended use. On PFAS, the guidance introduces a three-step enforcement approach for food-contact packaging: total fluorine quantification first, followed by pyrolysis-GC/MS analysis if needed, and then TOP analysis to verify compliance with the 25 and 250 ppb concentration limits. There is no stock exhaustion period: food-contact packaging placed on the market after 12 August 2026 must comply, regardless of when it was manufactured. On recyclability and substances of concern, the FAQs confirm that EN 13428:2004 will no longer create a presumption of conformity with the SoC minimisation requirements after 12 August 2026. The harmonised eco-modulation framework for EPR fees based on recyclability performance grades is still being developed through a delegated act. On reuse targets, the guidance addresses the HORECA sector's obligations on beverages, the scope of national exemptions, the position of custom-designed transport packaging, and the reuse targets in international trade. On deposit and return systems, it covers retailer obligations to accept deposit-bearing containers, the conditions for existing systems to qualify, and the relationship between the 2026 separate collection obligation and the 2029 DRS implementation deadline. Link to the FAQs: https://lnkd.in/eFM82C3B Guidance below 👇

“S.B. 6 authorizes the Public Utility Commission of Texas to develop two demand management programs — one mandatory and one voluntary — to ensure Texas data centers and other non-critical large loads help rather than hinder reliability. The law’s intent is “to make sure [large loads] pose as little reliability risk to the system as possible and [are] not drinking the milkshake of all other Texas power customers,” NRG Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Travis Kavulla said in an interview. S.B. 6 could avoid a future scenario like Winter Storm Uri, the dayslong freeze in February 2021 that saw millions of residential customers cut off from the grid as nearby industrial loads hummed along, Kavulla added. The mandatory demand management program applies to loads of 75 MW or greater that interconnect to ERCOT from January onwards. It allows utilities to disconnect eligible loads during firm load shed events and mandates the installation of shutoff equipment as a condition of grid interconnection. The voluntary program is a competitively procured reliability service active during specific times of the year, subject to a minimum 24-hour notice period and off-limits to any large-load customer that “curtails in response to the wholesale price of electricity … or that otherwise”

Chicago’s hemp regulatory path just took a significant turn. Yesterday, Mayor Brandon Johnson vetoed the City Council’s ordinance that would have expressly regulated and permitted hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including beverages, within the City of Chicago. In his veto letter, the Mayor cited two primary concerns: • Timing: He characterized the ordinance as “premature,” emphasizing the importance of aligning Chicago’s approach with forthcoming federal guidance. • Regulatory balance: He noted the need for a comprehensive framework that protects public health, supports small businesses, and ensures enforceability without creating unnecessary disruption. This veto leaves Chicago in a familiar’but challenging position: a rapidly expanding hemp marketplace operating without clear, tailored municipal rules. For operators, retailers, and investors, several key implications follow: 1. Continued uncertainty: The absence of a clear local regulatory framework prolongs ambiguity around the legality and treatment of hemp-derived cannabinoid products, particularly beverages. 2. Federal developments remain pivotal: The City is explicitly signaling that forthcoming federal action, whether through appropriations, FDA guidance, or legislative changes, will shape its ultimate approach. 3. Potential Council override or revised ordinance: The City Council retains the ability to override the veto or introduce a modified regulatory framework. 4. Near-term operational status quo: Businesses currently operating in Chicago should assume continued regulatory ambiguity rather than immediate formal authorization or prohibition. This moment reflects a broader national dynamic: jurisdictions are increasingly hesitant to lock in hemp regulatory frameworks while federal policy remains unsettled. For companies operating in the hemp beverage and cannabinoid space, this reinforces the importance of closely monitoring federal developments and maintaining flexible compliance strategies. Chicago remains one of the most important markets in the country. How and when it ultimately regulates hemp-derived cannabinoids will have ripple effects far beyond the city. I’ll continue tracking developments closely.

𝗘𝗕𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗨 𝗰𝗿𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 The European Banking Authority (EBA) latest report on “Tackling ML/TF Risks in Crypto-Asset Services through Supervision” provides clear confirmation of the structural issues many of us have long raised. It showcases evidence of the unlevel playing field that continues to exist ahead of full MiCAR implementation aka the end of the “grandfathering” period. Some interesting findings include: 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 🟥 A number of crypto firms are still providing services in the EU without the required licence or registration, often from third countries or under legacy national regimes. This undermines supervisory oversight and gives unregulated players an unfair competitive advantage over compliant market participants. 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 🟥 Some entities are choosing jurisdictions perceived as less demanding, withdrawing applications in stricter Member States and reapplying where supervision is lighter or transition periods longer. The result is a regulatory “hide and seek” that undermines consistent standards across the EU. 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 🟥 Certain non-EU providers are exploiting this exemption to target EU clients without authorisation, sidestepping the very safeguards MiCAR aims to establish. The EBA explicitly acknowledges that these behaviours distort fair competition and erode market trust, which is giving those who avoid compliance a cost and speed advantage over anyone who plays by the rules. This report represents a key step forward, as it formally acknowledges the market distortions we have long raised. The next priority must be swift and coordinated enforcement across the EU to translate MiCAR’s framework into real, fair competition.

If you work in sustainability or ops, you know the "United States" feels a lot less united right now when it comes to environmental compliance 🙃 We are staring down a patchwork of regulation that makes a "one-size-fits-all" approach nearly impossible when it comes to packaging and electronics / battery EPR. Waste Dive has a great rundown of the 2024–2026 legislative shifts, and the divergence is wild. 🟢 In the West, we have massive scope whiplash. You have Colorado regulating everything from tractors to servers, while Nevada is laser-focused on mobility devices to help folks with disabilities. 🟢 Then there is the "Who Runs the Show?" philosophical split. Colorado went with a producer-led model (industry runs the PRO), but Maine is sticking to a "municipal reimbursement" model. In one state, you’re the operator; in the other, you’re just the checkbook. It fundamentally changes your level of control over the recycling system. 🟢 Perhaps the biggest headache is synchronizing all the various dates. The reporting deadlines are all over the place. Illinois wants data in 2026, while Washington and Colorado are looking at 2027. We are moving into an era where compliance has become a massive data management challenge, in addition to the important elements like design, repair/recyclability...etc. The "so what?" is that you now need a sophisticated tracking system just to ensure you don't lose market access because of a missed deadline. I'm very curious to understand how everyone is handling this "spreadsheet chaos". It'll be another interesting year to see how we harmonize (or don't) these various requirements....! Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eS_zGRZ5 #SupplyChain #Sustainability #RightToRepair #TechPolicy #BusinessStrategy

The EU published its official interpretation of the Packaging Regulation today. Read it this afternoon. One thing kept coming back to me. Most commentary will focus on the packaging redesign requirements. That's not where I'd focus. It's a data project. To hit recycled content targets you need verified material data from your packaging suppliers. To prove PFAS compliance you need documented evidence from upstream. To calculate EPR fees accurately you need to know what packaging you're placing on which market, in what volumes. To sign your EU declaration of conformity, you, the brand, are solely legally responsible. Even if a supplier drafted it. And the Commission has been explicit about something else. The manufacturer isn't whoever physically makes the packaging. It's whoever owns the trademark on it. You cannot outsource this. You cannot point upstream if something is wrong. The obligation sits with the brand. You can't sign off on data you haven't verified. This is the same pattern we've seen with FLPA. With EUDR. With DPP. The regulation sets the deadline. The data infrastructure takes time to build. Circularity without traceability is just aspiration. Links to the full guidance document in the comments. #PPWR #PackagingRegulation #SupplyChainTransparency #Traceability #Circularity #Sustainability #Fashion #EUDR #DPP

Minnesota cannabis has gone full New York 🤦♂️ After watching Minnesota's cannabis licensing unfold, we're seeing the same state-local disconnect that's plagued other markets, and it's setting legitimate operators up for failure. Here's the backwards reality: Many cannabis businesses will be forced to invest $200K-500K+ in buildouts, equipment, and operations WITHOUT any certainty they'll actually receive local municipal approval. This is because many local municipalities are saying they won't give local approval without a state license, which has to include a site inspection based on the regulations. So basically the state hands out licenses while cities run separate, uncoordinated processes months later. The result? Cannabis musical chairs. Imagine telling any other industry: "Go ahead, build your restaurant/pharmacy/retail store, hire staff, sign long-term leases... and MAYBE the city will let you operate." It's insane. We've seen this playbook in New York, where the state-local coordination failure created chaos, lawsuits, and millions in wasted capital. Minnesota is following the exact same script. What operators face: ✅ State license approved ❌ No local license certainty 💸 Forced to build anyway or lose state license 🎰 Pray they win the local lottery Other states figured this out. Colorado requires local approval BEFORE state licensing. It's not complicated. Minnesota's cannabis industry deserves better than this regulatory Russian roulette. We need coordination between state agencies and municipalities, not a system designed to burn through operator capital. Call to action: Minnesota lawmakers and regulators need to fix this disconnect before more legitimate businesses get crushed by poor policy design. Note: Some cities are ahead of this and are allowing the local license to be received before state final approval (with site inspection required). But not many! Shout out to Thomas Howard for the headline! #Cannabis #Minnesota #Policy #RealEstate #CannabisRegulation

After years in the making, our Comparative Report: National #JudicialReview of #CompetitionLaw Enforcement in the EU and the UK is available at SSRN (with barry rodger)! In this report, we show that while national courts constitute the main forum for the review of enforcement decisions of Regulation 1/2003, European competition law and legal scholarship have offered scant guidance on the functions of *national* judicial review of the *EU* competition rules. As a result, the effectiveness of national judicial review within the EU legal order is often taken for granted, and very little is known about its operation and impact in practice. Based on a comprehensive, #comparative #empirical study - mapping out the judicial review of competition law public enforcement in the EU's 27 Member States and the UK - this report seeks to provide a comparative analysis of (i) the structures of the national enforcement systems, (ii) the total number of judgments rendered in each jurisdiction, the ratio of appeals, success rates and the outcome of judicial review; (iii) the types of appellants; (iv) the competition rules subject to review; (v) the grounds of review; (vi) use of preliminary references, (vii) the appeals involving leniency and/or settlements; and (viii) the role of third parties. The report concludes that the current system of judicial review of EU and national competition law enforcement by national courts *does not* fully match the integration aims of Regulation 1/2003, namely ensuring an effective, consistent, and uniform application of the competition rules by national courts in all Member States. The comparative report is available here: https://lnkd.in/ea_V-ymS Alongside 28 national reports, it is forthcoming soon in *Judicial Review of Competition Law Enforcement in the EU Member States and the UK* (Kluwer 2024), edited by barry rodger, Francisco Marcos, Maciej Bernatt, and Annalies Outhuijse and myself, and with contributions by: Viktoria (Vicky) Robertson, Caroline Cauffman, Alexandr SVETLICINII, Anton Dinev, Jasminka Pecotic Kaufman, Michal Petr, Marios Iacovides, Maria Vassiliou, Caroline Heide-Jørgensen, Petri Kuoppamäki, Rafael Amaro, Rupprecht Podszun, Dr. Nils Overhoff, Adriani Kalintiri, Lefkothea Nteka, MaryCatherine LUCEY, Michele Messina, Jurgita Malinauskaite, Sylvann Aquilina Zahra, Maciej Janik, Adriana Almasan, Ștefan Bogrea, Ondrej Blažo, Ana Vlahek, Lars Henriksson, Evelin Pärn-Lee, Csongor István Nagy, Julija Jerneva, and Miguel Sousa Ferro