California regulatory reversal: New marijuana delivery rules highlight Eaze’s political pull

California delivery protocol regulatory reversal, California regulatory reversal: New marijuana delivery rules highlight Eaze’s political pull

New cannabis rules in California released Tuesday highlight again how fractious the state’s industry remains.

The regulations also put the spotlight on the political influence wielded by a technology company that isn’t governed by the rules it has been lobbying to change.

Several cannabis industry insiders say the updated regulations – issued by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control – favor a business model championed by Eaze, which runs a website and smartphone app through which consumers can place delivery orders for cannabis.

But unlike cannabis delivery companies and retailers, Eaze isn’t required to possess state permits because orders placed with the firm are filled by licensed retailers. That situation has turned the business into a divisive flashpoint for many licensed companies that have had to deal with the red tape and costs of obtaining state permits.

The new rules are also an about-face from May 18 regulations, some industry insiders say, indicating that Eaze has significant political pull with state officials who are overseeing the rulemaking process.

At the center of the storm is the Bureau of Cannabis Control’s rules in Section 5418, which was intended to clarify last year’s emergency regulations prohibiting the so-called “ice cream truck” model of delivery, industry insiders said.

But the updated regulations announced Tuesday appear to allow that model, a move that would permit delivery companies to operate roving trucks that are stocked like a retail store and fill orders as they are placed online.

It’s important to note the regulations are far from finished. A first draft of the final rules is expected in coming months, and the state is required to finalize the rulemaking process by the end of the year.

That likely means more political maneuvering by stakeholders.

The critics

The new regulations – published on the Office of Administrative Law’s website – are “a 180-degree turn from where it was previously,” said Steven Domingo, the CEO and founder of WeDrop, a cannabis delivery company.

Domingo, along with several other industry groups and individuals, sent a letter to the Bureau last month expressing support for the May 18 regulations.

Other signatories included:

  • California Cannabis Delivery Alliance
  • Bay Area Delivery Alliance
  • Los Angeles Delivery Alliance
  • California Cannabis Couriers Association
  • San Diego Cannabis Delivery Alliance

“In previous discussions (with regulators),” Domingo said, “it was said the intention of the regulation was to be prepackaged orders from the point of origin to the point of sale, but now, (Section) 5418 has completely removed all of those requirements.

“It actually explicitly says you’re only required to have one designated order, and you can carry up to $10,000 worth of product. So if that’s a $60 order, you can have $9,940 worth of loose product in your car, which is pretty crazy.”

Domingo and others backed the May 18 rules, he said, because they gave more mainstream credibility to MJ delivery and supported what he called “the Amazon model” instead of the “ice cream truck” system. He predicted a multitude of problems if the new rules remain.

Bureau spokesman Alex Traverso declined to comment on the rule change, but Domingo and other industry insiders said the technology company Eaze was the driving force.

They also said Eaze is the biggest beneficiary of Tuesday’s updated delivery rules.

“When it comes down to it, this is all about Eaze. It’s not really helping the industry in general,” said Zachary Pitts, president of the California Cannabis Delivery Alliance.

Now, Domingo said, Eaze can “go to their quote-unquote partner dispensary, take ‘X’ amount of product and continue about their day without having to do the beehive model, where their guys are running in and out.”

The company wouldn’t have been able to function that way if the earlier regulations had remained in place.

“It’s obviously going to be more effective in that manner, if you can do deliveries on the go, and they’re assigning deliveries to that individual’s parameters,” Domingo said. “They’re going to be able to get there in a very short amount of time.”

The supporters

David Mack, Eaze’s vice president of public affairs, wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily that the updated rules have widespread industry backing, contrary to the picture painted by Domingo and Pitts.

“Over 450 licensed drivers, dispensaries, brands and industry advocates weighed in to support dynamic delivery, which is already used successfully every day to deliver legal cannabis products across California,” Mack wrote.

The new version of the rules, he said, would “provide a lot more specificity around how delivery works, which helps everyone plan and grow.”

In a May 30 letter to California regulators, Eaze dubbed its practice “dynamic delivery” and urged the Bureau to allow for a system under which “delivery orders are received by a licensed retailer at the licensed premises, and are then transmitted electronically to a badged delivery employee to complete the order using in-car inventory.”

Eaze’s letter to regulators also noted that “eliminating dynamic delivery will decrease regulated and taxed transactions, eliminate thousands of jobs, drive consumers to seek out alternative, illicit delivery operations, and frustrate California’s stated goal of fostering a safe and sustainable cannabis industry.”

In addition, the letter suggested rules changes that parallel the ones released Tuesday.

Mack shared with MJBizDaily letters from two licensed California cannabis businesses, as well as the Marijuana Policy Project and Teamsters Public Affairs Council, urging regulators to support dynamic delivery.

MPP’s director of state policies, Karen O’Keefe, wrote that eliminating the practice of dynamic delivery “would result in worse outcomes for consumers, patients, traffic and the environment, while driving more consumers to the illicit market.”

Regulatory chess match

The situation also raises questions, industry officials said, about how a tech company that doesn’t hold a state cannabis business permit could pull the political strings necessary to alter regulations when it’s technically not part of the space those rules are supposed to govern.

Eaze has spent more than $174,000 so far on lobbying efforts in Sacramento during the 2017-2018 legislative session, according to state records. Industry sources said Eaze had been working since late May to get the regulations changed to favor its business model and even lobbied Gov. Jerry Brown’s office directly.

“They were meeting with the governor’s office. They were meeting with the (Bureau of Cannabis Control),” said the California Cannabis Delivery Alliance’s Pitts.

To several in the California cannabis business, Tuesday’s development was just as much about how the regulations were changed as it was about the actual alterations.

“Eaze won,” a source wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily.

“This took high-level, direct intervention,” another source said.

However, another source that sided with Eaze said, “These delivery alliance groups should stop trying to use the regulatory process to make competition illegal.”

John Schroyer can be reached at [email protected]

7 comments on “California regulatory reversal: New marijuana delivery rules highlight Eaze’s political pull
  1. Trey on

    So let me get this straight. These delivery alliance guys try to kill Eaze and all the dispensaries and brands that use their service by lobbying the BCC and then…complain when Eaze lobbies the BCC?

    This industry needs to grow up. If we all stand around trying to regulate competitors out of business and pointing fingers the black market is going to eat us alive. So shortsighted.

    Also, what’s this nonsense about non-licensed people not being able to make their case to the BCC? What about patient advocates, police officials, veterans, cities, etc? Does this “industry official” really think you need a permit to have an say in how the industry works?

    That would be pretty cool for the tiny group of people that are hoarding licenses and terrible for anyone else who wants to get in or support the industry. Some of these license holders are starting to sound like taxi medallion owners. We saw how well that went…

  2. Erik on

    So no big surprise here. Big money is coming in and directly influencing the law to screw the majority of us over while a select few get all the reward. I thought the state promised us that WOULD NOT happen under the new law, but I guess if they just flat out change the law then they aren’t breaking any promises. I am really, really regretting voting for this law. I was making $2,000 a month in 2016, now I’m making $200 a month. Legalization is only helping big money and the politicians they can buy, while the rest of us are losing everything and the consumer is paying the price.

    • Jah on

      You are not understanding what the new law states. It needed to be changed to give more opportunities for new entrepreneurs and not have the previous license holders, stop new people from getting into the game. This will allow more delivery services to be more cost effective while being able to attend to more patients within same time limits.

      Normally I do agree with big companies taking over, but in this case, this company is trying to fight for all of our legal rights, for fair competition.

  3. Butrebaeshass on

    For about 30 years and almost exclusively for the last 15 years. To home delivery service has been the norm! This regulation just legalizes what was once considered Illegal. Any fight against this is just Anti- groups fighting to overturn voter approved access!

  4. Anthony on

    Anyone against delivery is just a moth crazy or anti-cannabis person! Delivery has been At least 10 years the standard. Hello well over half the state legal residences have no nearby access! 2-3 hour drive in traffic or a home delivery?

  5. Aces on

    Hmmm. I don’t think this is a black and white issue of delivery/no delivery. Under the initial law, if delivery is allowed (decided by local city), it has to come through a retailer that gets their products from a Distribution company. In this model, the retailer has to send their own drivers. But Eaze wants to be a part of the process, to interface the sales and do the delivery. Does it matter? If we kept Eaze out, the space will be filled by smaller, local service from retailers, with delivery trucks from dispensaries. But this has been slow-go, no-go, in so many places, and delivery law so limiting, it hasn’t had a chance to take hold. The advantage of Eaze is that their presence is so large, they can plug and play dispensaries/distributors into delivery and edge out the black market. Or can they? It’s just a theory! Black market delivers product that is un-taxed and can always be cheaper. And as long as Northern California municipalities are keeping licenses out of the hands of the majority, there will be a healthy black market supply to the whole state/world (bruh, go to Amsterdam, ask them where they get their s**t – they’ll ask you “Have you heard of Humboldt?”). This is tough competition for any legal delivery company.

    On one side, I personally think, hey as long as Eaze gets the product through the licensed system, who cares? B2B should not all need licensing. Say a company wants to outsource packaging and wants to send its product to a packaging plant – it would be ridiculous if every B2B service had to have a license. On the other hand I wonder if this opens up the door for a major work-around in retailing. Anyone who drop-ships know what I’m talking about. Now, under Eaze-advised changes, can anyone sell pot and pot-products as long as they get it from licensed sources? Who wouldn’t open a broker-website? And given that independent brokers are not allowed and must be employed by a Distro company, this seems unfair, allowing Eaze (and others!) to do it just because what – they’re on the internet?? Perhaps it’s better for Eaze to have to merge or be owned by a Distribution company, to keep this from being a ridiculous disaster for the regulatory market. Moot points, though, as Eaze won this battle. We’ll just have to see if it doesn’t open up the door for more website retailers without licenses… Maybe I should open one, because f**k it – if they can, I can, right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *