The CannaQuick class action is not just about one platform’s practices. It’s a test of California regulators’ resolve — and the survival of the state’s struggling legal market.
A new class action lawsuit against Weedmaps, filed by cannabis delivery operator Holistic Holdings (dba “CannaQuick Deliveries”), accuses the platform of knowingly allowing unlicensed cannabis retailers to advertise. The complaint contends that Weedmaps tilts the playing field by granting illicit operators the visibility that compliant businesses pay dearly to obtain, eroding market share for those who play by California’s rules. For many in the industry, the allegations feel like déjà vu — the return of a problem regulators have been slow to resolve.
At the core of the case is California’s Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs allege that Weedmaps knowingly and intentionally hosts unlicensed advertisers in violation of that statute, directing unsuspecting consumers to operators who are not licensed to sell cannabis at all. According to the lawsuit, the damage is not speculative. Each click steers business away from regulated entities like CannaQuick Deliveries. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages for lost profits, disgorgement of revenues Weedmaps allegedly earned from these unlawful listings, and — most critically — an injunction preventing the platform from continuing the practice.
The industry has heard these warnings before. As early as 2018, the Bureau of Cannabis Control issued a cease-and-desist to Weedmaps over unlicensed listings. In 2025, CannaQuick issued its own, citing dozens of noncompliant vendors still active on the platform. The complaint characterizes Weedmaps’ actions not as oversight but as strategy: maximize listings, licensed or not, to drive traffic, advertising revenue, and market dominance.
Weedmaps’ history lends the claim credibility. In 2024, its parent company, WM Technology, and several former executives were charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with making negligent misrepresentations about “monthly active users,” a key performance metric that was allegedly inflated. Investors also filed a securities fraud class action tied to those claims. And in 2019, Weedmaps briefly required advertisers to provide license numbers — a shift that coincided with another lawsuit over unlicensed listings. Taken together, these episodes suggest a pattern: compliance when compelled, and only then.
Yet the most pressing issue raised by the CannaQuick case is not about Weedmaps at all. It is about regulators. The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) is charged with protecting the integrity of the legal market. Its Compliance and Enforcement Division works with cities, counties, and law enforcement to investigate complaints, prevent underage access, stop unsafe products, and oversee inspections. Weedmaps has been on its radar for years. But enforcement has been inconsistent or as some contend, nonexistent, leaving licensed businesses to shoulder the costs of litigation that should never have been necessary.
For operators already burdened by high taxes, rigid compliance requirements, and shrinking margins, litigation is not simply expensive — it is existential. Each time a platform the size of Weedmaps tolerates unlicensed sellers, it sends a message that compliance is optional. And when compliance looks optional, the legitimacy of the entire system is at risk.
The Weedmaps lawsuit is not just another battle between a delivery operator and an advertising platform. It is a test of the state’s commitment to its own regulatory framework. Every day that unlicensed operators are allowed to compete openly against licensed businesses, the promises of consumer safety, reliable tax revenue, and a fair market lose credibility.
The burden should not fall on compliant operators to enforce the rules through private litigation. Regulators at both the state and local level must step in with consistent action. Cities that grant licenses and the DCC — the very agency charged with safeguarding the market — cannot allow this conduct to persist.
Licensed operators have invested heavily to build compliant businesses, only to see their margins eroded by competitors who flout the law. Regulators must now do their part. It is time for licensed businesses to make their concerns impossible to ignore: raise them with city officials, file complaints with the DCC, and press for action. Tolerance for unlicensed advertising is not a victimless oversight; it is a direct threat to the survival of California’s regulated market. Without coordinated enforcement, the businesses this system was designed to protect may not survive.
With over 15 years of experience shaping California’s cannabis landscape, Kimberly R. Simms is a pioneer in cannabis law and a trusted advisor to businesses across cultivation, distribution, retail, and ancillary services. Specializing in corporate law, transactions, and regulatory compliance, she helps clients structure deals, form partnerships, and navigate the state’s evolving legal framework with confidence. Beyond her practice, Kimberly is an active advocate for responsible policies and sustainable growth in the industry, underscoring her commitment to both her clients’ success and the broader cannabis marketplace.
