Tennessee House Bill HB1503

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/26
• Refer: 2/24/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Chaptered: 4/28/26
• Passed: 4/28/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 1, Chapter 3; Title 39; Title 43, Chapter 27; Title 53; Title 57, Chapter 7 and Title 67, Chapter 6, relative to hemp.

Summary

HB1503 is a Tennessee hemp-regulation bill that revises the state’s framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products (HDCPs), including licensing, supplier definitions, labeling, packaging, and product disclosure requirements. It updates who qualifies as a “supplier,” removes several references to “person or entity” in the hemp licensing statutes, and streamlines application language for hemp-related licenses. The bill also strengthens consumer-information rules for HDCPs. It requires a conspicuous warning statement about impairment and keeping products away from children, and it expands QR-code labeling requirements so consumers can access batch-specific certificates of analysis, testing dates, and potency/full-panel test results. For beverage products, it limits acceptable containers to traditional pull-tabs, approved aluminum can devices, or wine-style screw-top/cork-style caps. A major policy change is that the Department of Agriculture may not issue or renew HDCP supplier and retail licenses after the act’s effective date. That provision would significantly alter the licensing landscape for hemp-derived cannabinoid businesses in Tennessee by freezing new and renewed supplier/retail licensing under this chapter, while leaving the rest of the regulatory structure in place. The available committee history shows strong support, with unanimous or near-unanimous favorable recommendations in the House Business and Utilities Subcommittee, House Commerce Committee, and House Judiciary Committee. No committee transcript is available, but the voting pattern suggests the bill was generally viewed as a technical and regulatory update rather than a controversial measure. The main point of potential contention is the licensing restriction on HDCP suppliers and retailers, which could affect existing businesses and limit future market participation. Other likely concerns involve compliance costs for labeling, QR-code maintenance, and packaging changes, though the committee votes indicate those issues did not generate visible opposition in the recorded proceedings.

Impact

The bill amends multiple sections of Tennessee Code Annotated governing hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoid products, especially Title 57, Chapter 7. It changes statutory definitions, application requirements, product labeling rules, QR-code disclosure standards, and beverage container requirements, and it adds a prohibition on issuing or renewing HDCP supplier and retail licenses after the act’s effective date. These changes directly affect hemp-derived cannabinoid suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers, and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, which administers the licensing program.

Sentiment

The recorded legislative sentiment appears broadly favorable. The bill advanced through the House Business and Utilities Subcommittee, House Commerce Committee, and House Judiciary Committee with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, indicating strong bipartisan support or at least no recorded opposition at those stages. The available record suggests the measure was treated as a regulatory cleanup and consumer-protection update, with little visible controversy in committee.

Contention

The most notable contention point is the provision barring the Department of Agriculture from issuing or renewing HDCP supplier and retail licenses after the effective date, which could be seen as a significant market restriction for hemp-derived cannabinoid businesses. Secondary concerns likely involve the operational burden of new labeling, QR-code, and packaging requirements, especially for suppliers that must maintain accessible batch-level testing information. No transcript is available, so specific arguments for or against these provisions are not recorded, but the licensing freeze is the clearest area where affected industry participants might object.