California Assembly Bill AB1965

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Report Pass: 4/7/26
• Refer: 4/7/26
• Refer: 4/22/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 5/21/26
• Refer: 5/21/26
• Refer: 6/3/26

Caption

An act to amend Sections 26070, 26100, and 26104 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to cannabis.

Impact

If enacted, AB 1965 will bring significant changes to how cannabis products are tested and certified for safety standards across California. The bill enhances the authority of the Department of Cannabis Control, allowing it to access retail cannabis products for off-the-shelf testing. This change not only aims to ensure compliance with state testing standards but also seeks to create a more uniform standard that cannabis retailers and producers must follow. Additionally, retailers will be mandated to provide certificates of analysis for their cannabis products upon customer request, increasing transparency and accountability within the market.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1965, introduced by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins, aims to amend key sections of the Business and Professions Code related to cannabis testing and quality assurance. The bill emphasizes that all cannabis or cannabis products must undergo comprehensive testing or retesting, establishing more stringent standards to ensure consumer safety and product integrity. Specifically, the legislation seeks to update the regulations surrounding the testing processes conducted by licensed laboratories and the criteria for analyzing cannabis products before they reach the market. It is designed to promote a higher level of scrutiny and oversight within the cannabis industry, preventing unsafe products from being sold to consumers.

Contention

Although the bill's intent is to bolster safety and consumer confidence in cannabis products, it may also evoke points of contention among industry stakeholders. Many in the cannabis community might argue that the increased regulatory oversight could potentially stifle small businesses due to added compliance costs and logistical challenges tied to stringent testing protocols. Distributors and retailers will need to adapt quickly to the mandated changes, which could raise concerns about the feasibility of such adaptations, particularly for smaller entities that may have limited resources to meet these new requirements. This ongoing discussion on the balance between consumer safety and operational feasibility remains crucial as the legislative process unfolds.