Oregon marijuana processor fined $100,000 for skirting packaging rules

Be at the forefront of the latest cannabis scientific research. Register to attend the The Emerald Conference by MJBizScience, March 1-3 in San Diego.


Oregon regulators fined a recreational marijuana processor $100,000 for allegedly sidestepping packaging and labeling rules.

In a news release, the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) said it voted to uphold the decision of a state administrative law judge who found Luminous Botanicals sold vials of marijuana tincture that were not in compliance with the agency’s rules.

The OLCC said the labels on the tinctures “were not properly affixed” and could fall off, which could lead to an unsuspecting consumer inadvertently using the product.

“Small vials of marijuana product don’t provide any distinction on whether or not the product is from the legal or illegal market,” OLCC Executive Director Steve Marks said in the release.

The OLCC said it worked with Luminous Botanicals for more than a year to find a solution, but the company continued to sell products that violated state rules.

Business leaders need reliable industry data and in-depth analysis to make smart investments and informed decisions in these uncertain economic times.

Order your 2022 MJBiz Factbook, out now!

Featured Inside:
  • 200+ pages and 50 charts with key data points
  • State-by-state guide to regulations, taxes & opportunities
  • Segmented research reports for the marijuana + hemp industries
  • Accurate financial forecasts + investment trends


Stay ahead of the curve and avoid costly missteps in the rapidly evolving cannabis industry.

Luminous Botanicals did not immediately respond to an MJBizDaily request for comment.

The OLCC charged the company with a violation for each sale of the trial-sized vial and offered to settle the case for $30,000 instead of the maximum $100,000 penalty.

Luminous’ legal counsel argued that the company had been exemplary in its dealings with the OLCC but misunderstood the rules and made an innocent error.

The counsel argued the company deserved leniency in the form of a warning, instead of a fine. The OLCC disagreed.