Impact of Montana Senate Bill 375 on Hemp Edible Shipments

Examining the Implications for Direct-to-Consumer Shipping in Montana

The passage of Montana Senate Bill 375 in the 2025 legislative session introduces significant changes to the regulation of hemp products within the state, particularly concerning edible items containing THC. This legislation directly impacts businesses involved in the sale and distribution of such products to Montana consumers, including those operating under direct-to-consumer shipping models.

Key Highlights of Montana SB 375 and its Effects

Prohibition on Edible Hemp Products with THC: Senate Bill 375 explicitly prohibits the sale of edible hemp products that contain THC to consumers in Montana, with specific exceptions likely related to licensed cannabis dispensaries.
Impact on Direct-to-Consumer Shipping: Companies utilizing direct-to-consumer shipping models for hemp-derived edible products containing THC will likely face restrictions or outright prohibition on sending these items to Montana residents.
Potential Challenges for Companies like CANN and Calexo: Businesses like CANN and Calexo, which produce and market hemp-infused beverages containing THC, may need to adjust their distribution strategies for Montana to comply with the new law.

Understanding Montana Senate Bill 375

Montana Senate Bill 375, introduced by Sen. Mark Noland, aims to revise existing laws related to the sale of hemp products to consumers in the state. A central component of this bill is the prohibition on the sale of edible hemp products that contain THC.

The Legislative Process and Intent

Senate Bill 375 progressed through the legislative process in Montana during the 2025 session. The bill was introduced, advanced through committee, and passed the Senate before being transmitted to the Governor. The stated intention behind such legislation often revolves around public health concerns, particularly regarding potential accidental consumption by children, and a desire to create clearer distinctions between regulated marijuana products and hemp-derived products available outside of licensed dispensaries.

The bill specifically targets edible products, suggesting a focus on items that may be appealing or easily mistaken for conventional food or beverage items.

Montana lawmakers discussing changes to marijuana laws.

Defining Hemp and THC in Montana Law

Under federal law, specifically the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2014 (the Farm Bill), hemp is defined as a Cannabis Sativa L. plant with a delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Marijuana, in contrast, refers to cannabis plants with a higher THC concentration. Montana has aligned with this federal definition to some extent, legalizing hemp. However, state regulations can impose further restrictions, as seen with SB 375.

Montana's existing cannabis regulations also prohibit marijuana and marijuana products containing any synthetic cannabinoids, including CBD, within the licensed cannabis framework. SB 375 appears to address hemp products containing naturally occurring THC.

Direct-to-Consumer Shipping Regulations in Montana

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) shipping involves sending products directly from the producer or retailer to the end consumer. This model is common for various goods, including in some cases, regulated products like alcohol and cannabis-derived items, where permitted by law.

Existing DTC Frameworks in Montana

Montana has established frameworks for direct shipping of certain products, notably wine. Wineries can obtain a Direct Shipment Endorsement, allowing them to ship a limited volume of table wine directly to Montana consumers. This requires registration, payment of fees, and compliance with state regulations, including submitting federal label approvals for shipped brands. Montana also allows for medical marijuana delivery within the state for registered cardholders.

However, the legality of shipping other products, particularly those with varying levels of regulation like hemp-derived items containing THC, is subject to specific state and federal laws. Interstate shipping of cannabis, even if legal in both the origin and destination states, is generally prohibited under federal law due to cannabis's classification as a Schedule I substance. While hemp was legalized federally, the legality of shipping hemp products with any level of THC across state lines has been a complex and evolving area.

Shipping Hemp and CBD

Shipping hemp and CBD products is permissible under federal law, provided they meet the definition of hemp (less than 0.3% delta-9 THC). However, carriers like UPS and FedEx have their own policies regarding the shipment of hemp and CBD. While UPS generally permits shipping hemp and CBD that comply with federal law, FedEx has had more restrictive policies regarding raw or unrefined hemp products.

Companies shipping hemp-derived products into Montana are typically required to include their originating state's hemp license and a bill of lading detailing the destination.

Analyzing the Impact of SB 375 on CANN and Calexo

CANN and Calexo are companies that produce beverages infused with hemp-derived THC and CBD. They market their products as alternatives to alcohol, often emphasizing a "light lift" or mood-enhancing experience. Their business models often involve both wholesale distribution and direct-to-consumer sales where legally permissible.

Example of a CANN beverage product.

SB 375 and Hemp-Infused Beverages

Senate Bill 375's prohibition on edible hemp products containing THC directly impacts beverages that fall under this category. Since CANN and Calexo's beverages contain hemp-derived THC, and are consumed orally, they would likely be classified as "edible hemp products" under the scope of the bill.

The bill's passage means that the sale of these beverages to consumers within Montana is prohibited, unless an exception applies. Given that the bill targets sales to "consumers," this would include sales made through direct-to-consumer shipping.

Direct-to-Consumer Shipping Restrictions

With the prohibition on the sale of these products to consumers in Montana, direct-to-consumer shipping of CANN and Calexo beverages containing THC to Montana addresses would become illegal. Even if a company is licensed to produce or sell hemp products in another state, Montana's law would govern sales and possession within its borders.

This aligns with the general principle that interstate shipping of products like these is fraught with legal challenges due to the differing state and federal regulations.

Hemp extract gummies, another form of edible hemp product.

Potential Strategies for Companies

In response to SB 375, companies like CANN and Calexo would need to cease direct-to-consumer shipments of their THC-infused beverages to Montana. Their ability to sell their products in Montana would depend on whether their products could be reformulated to comply with the law (e.g., removing THC or ensuring it falls below any potential legal threshold for non-prohibited products) or if there are specific licenses or pathways within Montana's legal cannabis market that they could pursue (though Montana law currently prohibits licensed cannabis companies from selling hemp products).

It's also important to note that while SB 375 focuses on edible hemp products with THC, Montana also prohibits licensed cannabis facilities from selling hemp-based products.

Related Legal and Shipping Considerations

Federal vs. State Law

The conflict between federal and state laws regarding cannabis and hemp remains a significant factor in interstate commerce. While the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp at the federal level, it did not explicitly create a framework for the interstate sale of all hemp-derived products, particularly those containing cannabinoids like THC, in a way that overrides state prohibitions.

Carrier Policies

Shipping carriers like USPS, UPS, and FedEx have their own internal policies that must be followed, in addition to state and federal laws. Even if a product is legal to sell and possess in both the origin and destination states, a carrier may refuse to transport it based on their terms and conditions.

Taxation on DTC Shipments

For products where DTC shipping is permitted, states often have specific tax requirements, including excise taxes and potentially sales taxes, that direct shippers must collect and remit. However, with SB 375 prohibiting the sale of these specific products, the taxation of their DTC shipment to Montana becomes moot.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does SB 375 ban all hemp products in Montana?

No, SB 375 specifically targets edible hemp products that contain THC. Other hemp products that do not contain THC, or are not in edible form, may still be legal in Montana, subject to other state regulations.

Can I still buy hemp products in Montana?

The ability to purchase hemp products in Montana depends on the specific product and where it is being sold. Hemp products that comply with state law, excluding the prohibited edible THC products under SB 375, may be available through various retailers.

Does SB 375 affect medical marijuana patients?

The primary focus of SB 375 is on hemp products sold to general consumers. Montana has a separate legal framework for medical marijuana. However, the interaction between hemp regulations and the medical marijuana program can be complex, and it's advisable to consult the specific text of the bill and related regulations for clarity.

Will this law be challenged?

It is not uncommon for legislation concerning cannabis and hemp to face legal challenges. The specific language of SB 375 and its implementation could potentially be subject to legal review, but this would depend on various factors, including who might bring a challenge and on what grounds.

What are the penalties for violating SB 375?

The penalties for violating SB 375 would be outlined within the text of the bill or related Montana statutes. These could include fines, civil penalties, or other enforcement actions.