“There is a fundamental principle in this state and in this country that before you lose everything at the hands of the government, you have a right to appear in some forum to defend yourself.”
On June 30, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission issued a summary order suspending the license of Assured Testing Laboratories, an Independent Testing Laboratory (ITL) regulated by the agency.
The directive, which took effect on July 4, noted: “the immediate suspension of all agent registrations associated with [Assured], and the cessation of all licensed operations having determined that [Assured] established a pattern of failing to accurately report Total Yeast and Mold test results to the Commission and in the Seed-to-Sale System of Record, Metrc (herein, “Metrc”).”
But while the order further stated that the ITL’s “noncompliance poses an immediate and serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare of the Commonwealth and undermines the Commission’s confidence in Respondent’s ability to uphold its regulatory obligations,” Assured refutes the findings. As Talking Joints Memo was first to report, on Thursday, July 3, the lab filed a complaint in Suffolk County Superior Court against the CCC arguing that the suspension came “without [the commission] affording [Assured] its basic due process rights of notice and opportunity to be heard.”
Yesterday, Assured followed up with a verified complaint and jury demand. It reads in part: “The Order is unlawful and, if it takes effect, ATL will be grievously harmed, be required to terminate employees, and eventually will be forced out of business, all over what is essentially a data-reporting disagreement. … ATL has attempted to persuade the Commission to convene an immediate hearing on the matter and, in the meantime, stay the operation of the Order; however, the Commission has refused to do either and, indeed, has not scheduled any hearing at all.”
Assured’s CEO and founder Dr. Dimitrios Pelekoudas provided the following comment through an attorney: “There is a fundamental principle in this state and in this country that before you lose everything at the hands of the government, you have a right to appear in some forum to defend yourself. Assured Testing Laboratory, a locally run business with 33 employees, did nothing wrong here, posed no threat to the public, and ensured that no contaminated products reached the market. This is a simple disagreement about how data was being reported. In fact, the CCC’s regulations were so unclear on this specific testing issue, that it reissued regulations that became effective as of April 1 of this year. At all times Assured Testing Laboratory complied with all active regulations and orders.”
Assured and the lawsuit between Independent Testing Labs
Ten days before the CCC issued its suspension order for Assured, the company submitted an argument to Suffolk County Superior Court for seemingly related litigation to be dismissed. In January, MCR Labs filed a lawsuit against eight other Massachusetts ITLs including Assured for alleged “violations” of the state’s cannabis law, including “intentional interference with advantageous business relations” and “unjust enrichment.”
The MCR complaint reads, in part: “Defendant Labs’ unfair, unlawful, and deceptive conduct is twofold. Defendants (1) artificially inflate Total THC Potency in tests of their customers’ cannabis products; and/or (2) ignore “safety fails” in test results—manipulating tests for product batches that contain contaminants such as yeast and mold, lead, and pesticides that are banned or restricted under Massachusetts law, so that the test results will not show the presence of these unlawful contaminants.”
The MCR lawsuit is especially harsh on Assured, alleging that it “has been one of the most aggressive inflators of THCa results in Massachusetts.” “By the second quarter of 2024,” the complaint charges, “Assured Testing held the position of lab with highest average THCa results by a large margin—approximately 14.5% higher than Massachusetts’ average for the quarter.”
The CCC’s findings appear to support at least some of the MCR claims: “Respondent’s practice of requesting additional Marijuana lab sample submissions for failing Total Yeast and Mold results is an intentional effort to conceal those failing results and only report the favorable results on behalf of its clients contradicts Commission regulations and the Protocol putting the health of Patients and Consumers at risk. These actions posed an immediate or serious threat to public health, safety or welfare.”
More from the lab’s lawsuit against the Cannabis Control Commission
Among other issues, the Assured complaint suggests that the ITL is being treated differently than other licensed cannabis businesses that have had enforcement actions issued against them. It reads: “In contrast to the Order, the Commission has historically addressed serious allegations against other operators through investigations, adjudicatory hearings, and negotiated settlements, even in cases involving the kinds of very direct and immediate health or safety risks that are not even alleged to exist in the present case.”
The lab also claims to have recently made changes in line with CCC testing directives that should make this issue moot: “ATL anticipates being able to demonstrate with credible evidence that it has complied with every aspect of Administrative Order No. 4 since its effective date (effective April 1, 2025), as well as all regulations prior to April 1, 2025. In addition, ATL anticipates being able to demonstrate with credible evidence that its metric-reported rates have significantly risen since Administrative Order No. 4 and are closer in line with other operators.”
At the center of its argument, Assured is claiming that there was a “violation of due process.” The complaint states: “The Commission’s enabling statute … allows the Commission to regulate and revoke licenses, but it does not allow the Commission to unilaterally suspend licenses without giving licensees their well-established constitutional due process rights of prior notice and opportunity to be heard.”
In its lawsuit, ATL is seeking “preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the Cannabis Control
Commission from enforcing the Summary Suspension Order,” and “a declaration that the Order is unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void, as it violates ATL’s rights to due process, constitutes an arbitrary and capricious agency action, imposes an excessive fine, and constitutes an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.”
