HB 36 amends Louisiana law governing civil actions for damages involving illegal controlled substances and consumable hemp products. The bill expands the definition of “illegal controlled substance” to expressly include consumable hemp products when their possession or distribution violates state hemp law. It also updates the damages provision so that a person may seek damages from someone who sold, administered, or furnished an illegal controlled substance, or a consumable hemp product, to a person under 21.
The bill further creates limits on when damages may be recovered for injuries caused by a consumable hemp product. A claimant may not recover if the only allegation is that a processor, wholesaler, or retailer lacked an active permit while a renewal application was pending review, if the product had been approved by the Louisiana Department of Health at the time of the incident, or if the product had previously been approved and the approval had not been revoked for more than 60 days. These exemptions do not apply when the injured person is a minor.
Impact
HB 36 changes Louisiana Civil Code-related liability rules by bringing certain consumable hemp products within the statutory definition of illegal controlled substances for purposes of damages actions. It affects processors, wholesalers, retailers, and others in the hemp supply chain by exposing them to civil liability in some circumstances while also creating specific safe-harbor-style exceptions tied to permit status and Department of Health approval. The bill also preserves broader liability exposure where minors are injured.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislature, passing the House and Senate unanimously at each recorded stage, including final passage and conference report adoption. The vote history suggests strong bipartisan agreement on tightening or clarifying civil liability rules for consumable hemp products while preserving protections for minors.
Contention
The main policy tension in HB 36 is between consumer protection and industry/regulatory certainty. Supporters likely favored giving injured parties a damages remedy when hemp products are sold unlawfully or cause harm, especially to minors, while the exemptions indicate concern about penalizing businesses that are operating with pending permit renewals or relying on Department of Health approvals. The bill’s carve-outs suggest the legislature sought to avoid imposing liability solely for technical licensing issues or for products previously approved by the state.