Current Month (November 2025)
Business Crimes & Corporate Compliance
By William E. H. Quick, Outside Inside Counsel, LLC
Visit Business Law Today’s November 2025 in Brief: Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships to read the full update on accountancy and the unauthorized practice of law.
Cannabis Law
Big Changes Coming to Cannabinoid Hemp Industry
By Daniel Shortt, Salzhauer & Shortt, P.C.
On November 12, 2025, Donald Trump signed legislation to recriminalize many hemp products in the United States. The effective language was added to the appropriations bill to end the government shutdown. Congress effectively closed the loophole that previously excluded hemp and hemp-derived products from the definition of marijuana. This loophole resulted from the broad definition of hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill, which defined hemp as cannabis with less than 0.3 percent tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), as well as all cannabinoids and derivatives from hemp. This broad definition led to the proliferation of intoxicating cannabinoid products containing delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC, and other similar cannabinoids.
Going forward, the legality of products derived from hemp will be based on the presence of synthesized cannabinoids (those that are not naturally occurring in the cannabis plant) or on the amount of intoxicating THC in the product. The new threshold is 0.4 milligrams of THC, which includes the total amount of delta-9 THC, THCA (a precursor to delta-9 THC), and any other intoxicating cannabinoids. The ban applies to all products intended for use by humans or animals, whether ingested, inhaled, or applied topically. It also applies to intermediary products, including oils and powders, that will later be added to finished products.
The application of the ban to intermediary products will likely make the manufacture of products containing cannabidiol (“CBD”) and other nonintoxicating cannabinoids illegal. In order to isolate CBD—a naturally occurring cannabinoid—cannabinoids must be extracted, which temporarily increases the amount of THC in the resulting oil or powder.
The FDA will determine within ninety days which cannabinoids are naturally occurring in the hemp plant and which are similar to delta-9 THC.
Hemp products containing intoxicating cannabinoids have become very popular and are available across the country. Minnesota has fully embraced these products, and they are widely available. Even Target has launched a pilot program in Minnesota to sell select THC beverages.
The hemp ban will go into effect in November 2026, one year after the passage of the appropriations bill. Federal lawmakers, including Rep. Nancy Mace and Rep. Ilhan Omar, are already working on legislation to remove the hemp-ban language or to propose a new regulatory scheme that would regulate—but still allow—hemp products. A number of lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, opposed the language in the appropriations bill but were not willing to further extend the government shutdown over the hemp ban.
If legislation does not prevent the hemp ban, there are other potential factors that could delay enforcement. Shutting down a multibillion-dollar industry will be expensive, and it is not currently clear how much money the federal government is willing to allocate to this effort. Industry stakeholders are also likely to litigate the issue.
For now, if nothing changes, all hemp products intended for consumption will be banned by this time next year.
Consumer Finance Law
CFPB’s Latest Guidance Expands FCRA Preemption
By Nicholas Vera, Pilgrim Christakis LLP
On October 28, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a new interpretative rule dramatically broadening the scope of preemption of state law by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The rule, 12 CFR Part 1022, states that the FCRA “generally preempts State laws that touch on broad areas of credit reporting,” replacing a narrower 2022 interpretation that allowed states to regulate the reporting of categories such as medical debt, arrest records, and other subjects in consumer reports.
Citing the FCRA’s legislative history, the Bureau explained that Congress intended the FCRA to create uniformity across the credit reporting system and that a patchwork of differing state requirements could weaken the accuracy and comparability of consumer information. Although the interpretative rule does not itself amend the FCRA, industry participants expect the rule to bolster preemption arguments in future challenges to state laws attempting to regulate the reporting of certain categories of debt or negative information.
Still, the practical impact of the rule will depend on how courts apply it in litigation. Interpretive rules are not binding law; judges will ultimately decide whether particular state statutes are preempted under the FCRA’s text and structure. As a result, while the CFPB’s guidance may strengthen preemption arguments, its influence will hinge on judicial receptiveness and how aggressively federal and state regulators test the boundaries of the credit reporting landscape.
