Unraveling the Complexities of Cannabis Transactions

The world of payment processing is inherently complex, a complexity that’s magnified within the cannabis industry—a sector synonymous with regulatory ambiguity. This blog aims to unravel the intricacies that cannabis businesses face, particularly in online payment processing, and to clarify the term “Cannabis Space” as encompassing the entire industry, from those handling the plant directly to ancillary service providers.

A New Era for Hemp and CBD

The 2018 Farm Bill heralded a new age, particularly for CBD, categorizing any cannabis product with 0.3% THC or less as hemp, thus distinguishing it from marijuana—a Schedule I substance. This reclassification has ostensibly made CBD as lawful as dairy on a federal scale, allowing certain players to offer their products nationally and accept credit cards for payment.

Credit Card Processing: A Cautious Progression

Despite the liberalization, Acquiring Banks—the institutions providing merchant accounts for credit card transactions—have largely approached CBD retail with caution. CBD is still deemed high risk, and only a select few banks have engaged with the market after four years.

Banking Jargon Decoded: Acquiring Banks vs. Issuing Banks

Understanding merchant processing requires differentiating between two types of banks: Acquiring Banks, which provide merchant accounts, and Issuing Banks, which offer payment cards to consumers. A bank offering you a Visa card is an Issuing Bank, though it may also serve as an Acquiring Bank.

Navigating ‘High-Risk’ Waters

The ‘high-risk’ label attached to CBD by card associations such as Visa and MasterCard means that Acquiring Banks, which are risk-averse by nature, are hesitant to engage. This stems from a higher perceived risk of fraud or chargebacks associated with CBD products.

Legal Nuances and Compliance Challenges

For banks, the legality of boarding cannabis merchants is fraught with legal complexities. Selling products with just a hair over 0.3% THC can lead to severe federal penalties, while staying under that threshold is entirely legal. Banks depend on third-party lab reports to ensure legality, a reliance that introduces a significant degree of risk.

The Bank’s Dilemma: Understanding Lab Reports

Bank underwriters often find themselves in a quandary when assessing the THC content on Certificates of Analysis (COAs). While federal law and judicial rulings have affirmed that only the Delta-9 THC content is relevant, inconsistencies in COA presentations and a lack of standardized templates can lead to confusion and caution.

Advice for CBD Companies Seeking Payment Processors

For CBD businesses, differentiation between federally legal hemp and illegal marijuana products must be crystal clear. By adhering to Visa and MasterCard’s high risk merchant registration processes and maintaining comprehensive and up-to-date lab reports, companies can streamline the underwriting process for Acquiring Banks.

Conclusion: Charting a Path Forward

The payment processing landscape for the cannabis industry remains a maze of regulations and standards. CBD companies must navigate these with diligence and transparency to partner effectively with financial institutions. As the industry grows and the rules evolve, clarity and compliance will be the keys to unlocking the full potential of cannabis e-commerce.

Thousands of veterans, and military personnel exposed to toxic AFFF firefighting foam chemicals during their service, are waiting to see the outcome of a major lawsuit filed against the foam manufacturers.

This AFFF exposure has been linked to various cancers and health conditions in veterans. As settlement talks continue in 2024, here is a look at where this landmark AFFF lawsuit currently stands and what impacted veterans can expect moving forward.

Introduction to the AFFF Lawsuit

AFFF firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals has been used extensively by the U.S. Navy and Marines since the 1970s.

These toxic compounds, while effective at dousing fires, stay in the body and environment for a long time. Research links PFAS from AFFF to cancers, immune disorders, and other serious health effects in exposed military personnel. Extensive use and accidents led to drinking water contamination across bases, furthering exposure.

After evidence mounted of PFAS health impacts, veterans filed a class action lawsuit in 2020 against AFFF manufacturers like 3M and Tyco. Plaintiffs allege the companies knowingly hid the risks of the foam chemicals for decades, leading to illness and death in those who served. Now consolidated, the landmark AFFF lawsuit by Navy service members seeks medical monitoring, disability aid, and financial compensation for all veterans and civilians exposed to AFFF dating back to the 1960s.

While a trial or settlement is likely years away, this case represents hope for long-awaited justice for those harmed by PFAS chemicals during their military service.

Current Status of AFFF Lawsuits

As of February 2024, about 7000 cases are pending in the AFFF class action MDL.

In January 2024, 279 cases were added to the MDL, which brought up the total number to 6,994. 3M Co., one of the defendants in this MDL, proposed a settlement worth at least $10.5 billion. This settlement will address liability issues, and help decontaminate approximately 12,000 public water systems by removing PFAS pollutants.

Moreover, Connecticut’s Attorney General, William Tong, has filed two lawsuits against 28 chemical manufacturers. The lawsuits contain over 30 counts of violations against 28 responsible parties. It alleges that the companies knowingly contaminated Connecticut’s waters and natural resources. The lawsuit hopes to hold the companies responsible and seek monetary and manual help to restore the damage.

That sounds great, but what about individual firefighters and military personnel? Negotiations are ongoing, and there has been nothing but delays and hurdles.

Potential Timeline

Most expert projections estimate a resolution of the AFFF lawsuit settlements by the end of 2024.

If this projection fails, it is estimated that the lawsuit will last at least for the next 2 years. Major environmental cases often take over a decade to conclude, especially with likely appeals. While momentum from settlement talks is positive, there are factors like COVID-19 delays and scientific uncertainties that could prolong the process.

Lawyers close to the negotiations expect a settlement proposal within 18–24 months if progress continues.

Impact of a Settlement

According to TruLaw, based on previous class action settlements, the compensation from the AFFF lawsuit could average around $40,000 to $300,000 per plaintiff.

However, the compensation would vary depending on the extent of exposure and illness. If a settlement is reached, an administrator would likely be appointed to distribute funds and determine eligibility.

Moreover, a settlement could also establish a medical monitoring program to fund health screenings for all exposed AFFF veterans. This could improve diagnosis, treatment, and disability benefits.

Risks to Settlement

Despite hope from both parties, risks could still derail a settlement. If key issues remain unresolved as talks advance, negotiations could reach an impasse.

Defendants may also be unwilling to agree to the extent of liability or class size sought by plaintiffs. With hundreds of millions at stake, talks could collapse and lead to a lengthy trial phase.

Plaintiffs would then face challenges like strict causation standards for illnesses.

The Path Forward for Veterans

While the lawsuit outcome remains uncertain, the VA encourages all veterans concerned about AFFF exposure to take advantage of existing resources like disability claims, free health exams, and toxic exposure screenings.

Veterans should also consult accredited claims agents who can explain current compensation options. To stay updated on the litigation, impacted veterans can connect with advocates like Veterans Legal Institute, who provide regular lawsuit updates.

Though the road ahead is long, the attention on AFFF contamination continues to grow, along with hopes for justice.

The AFFF class action lawsuit represents a long-overdue attempt to get justice for veterans harmed by toxic chemicals while serving their country.

While the outcome is still uncertain, the momentum behind the case continues to grow. Veterans impacted by AFFF exposure should stay updated on resources available and progress in the litigation. Though compensation cannot undo the damage done, holding manufacturers accountable could finally help thousands of veterans get recognition for their sacrifices, medical support, and financial relief.

After decades of suffering, there is hope these legal efforts will ultimately provide veterans their rightful due.