After their purchases from a marijuana company in California failed to meet their expectations of a decent high, two consumers filed a lawsuit.
RELATED STORIES: Florida Mother Arrested 6-Year-Old Tests Positive For Cocaine, Marijuana, And Benzos
Last week, Jasper Centeno and Blake Wilson filed a lawsuit against Dreamfields Brands, accusing them of deceptive advertising, willful deception, and unjust enrichment. Although an independent laboratory test proved their “Jeeter” pre-rolls did not have a high chemical quantity of THC, as CBS News reported, the company promoted their products as having higher chemical levels than their competitors.
One of the products was labeled to have a THC content of 46 percent, but the report found 23 to 27 percent in the preroll. “Defendants are overcharging consumers. Plaintiffs brought this to protect California consumers from protecting cannabis consumers from being overcharged,” their attorney Christin Cho said in a statement.
RELATED STORIES: The New York Post Receives Backlash After Writing An Article About Snoop Dogg Smoking Marijuana Before The Halftime Show
The two consumers said they purchased the Jeeter products for a premium price and were overcharged. However, the suit doesn’t state how much they paid for the pre-rolls.
“The declarations of THC content on Defendants’ labels, however, are false. Testing by independent labs reveals that the true THC content of Defendants’ products is materially less than the amount listed on the label. Moreover, the difference is far greater than the 10% margin of error that DCC regulations permit. Defendants are systematically overstating the THC content to deceive consumers into thinking that the effects of their prerolls are more potent than they truly are. This is false and misleading. And, it violates DCC regulations, and California law.”
Additionally, the suit is seeking class-action status, and the two seek damages for an unknown amount.
‘Plaintiffs bring this cause of action individually and on behalf of the class. As alleged in detail above, Defendants falsely advertised its products by falsely representing that Defendants’ Products contained the THC content listed on the labels. Defendants’ misrepresentations were likely to deceive and did deceive, Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers. Defendants knew, or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care, that these statements were false and misleading.’