Good Day Farm Lawsuit: Missouri Class-Action Case Explained

Executive Summary

Missouri consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against Good Day Farm, one of the state's largest multi-state cannabis operators, in May 2026, alleging consumer protection violations and deceptive business practices. The lawsuit, filed in Missouri state court, represents a significant legal challenge for the vertically integrated cannabis company that operates dispensaries and cultivation facilities across multiple states including Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Good Day Farm, which launched its first Missouri dispensary in 2020 following the state's medical marijuana program rollout, faces allegations that could impact its operations across its entire footprint. The case arrives as Missouri's adult-use cannabis market matures following voter approval of Amendment 3 in November 2022, which legalized recreational marijuana sales starting February 2023. Class-action litigation in the cannabis industry remains relatively rare due to federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act, making this lawsuit a potential bellwether for consumer protection enforcement in state-legal markets. The outcome could establish precedents for product labeling, testing accuracy, and advertising claims across the cannabis sector, particularly for multi-state operators (MSOs) that have consolidated market share in newly legal jurisdictions.

Why This Matters

This lawsuit affects Missouri's 340,000+ registered medical marijuana patients, the state's adult-use consumers, and the broader $1.2 billion Missouri cannabis market that generated over $270 million in tax revenue in 2025. Good Day Farm operates eight dispensaries across Missouri, making it one of the state's largest retail footprints. Any adverse judgment could result in product recalls, operational changes, and financial penalties that ripple through the company's multi-state operations. For consumers, the case raises fundamental questions about product safety, testing accuracy, and truth-in-advertising in cannabis markets where federal oversight remains absent. Unlike alcohol or pharmaceuticals, cannabis products cannot be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to marijuana's Schedule I status under 21 U.S.C. § 812. This regulatory gap leaves enforcement to state agencies with varying resources and expertise. For investors and operators, the lawsuit highlights legal exposure risks that MSOs face as they scale across state lines. Good Day Farm raised approximately $75 million in growth capital between 2020 and 2024, according to industry reports, and operates under licenses in four states. Class-action liability could impact the company's ability to secure additional financing, pursue acquisitions, or maintain compliance with state licensing requirements that often include "good character" provisions. The case also matters for the broader cannabis industry's legitimacy. As federal rescheduling discussions continue following the Department of Justice's August 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to move cannabis to Schedule III, state-level consumer protection enforcement demonstrates whether legal markets can self-regulate effectively or require enhanced federal oversight.

Background and History

Good Day Farm's Formation and Expansion (2019-2020)

Good Day Farm was founded in 2019 by a group of Arkansas-based investors and operators who secured one of the state's limited cultivation licenses. The company established its first cultivation facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, in early 2020, focusing on indoor cultivation methods and strain genetics sourced from established West Coast breeders. The company's initial product lineup emphasized popular strains including OG Kush, Wedding Cake, and proprietary crosses developed in-house. In 2020, Good Day Farm expanded into Missouri following the state's medical marijuana licensing lottery conducted by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). The company secured multiple dispensary licenses and a cultivation license, allowing vertical integration from seed to sale. Missouri's medical program, authorized by Amendment 2 in 2018, began licensed sales in October 2020 after regulatory delays and legal challenges to the licensing process.

Missouri's Medical Marijuana Program Launch (2018-2020)

Missouri voters approved Amendment 2 to the state constitution in November 2018 with 66% support, establishing a comprehensive medical marijuana program. The amendment authorized DHSS to license up to 338 dispensaries, 86 cultivation facilities, and 92 infused product manufacturers statewide. The program imposed a 4% retail tax on medical marijuana sales, with revenue directed to veterans' services, drug treatment programs, and early childhood education. DHSS conducted a competitive application process in 2019, scoring applications based on business plans, security measures, and community integration. The process faced immediate legal challenges from unsuccessful applicants alleging scoring irregularities and conflicts of interest. Multiple administrative hearings and court cases delayed the program's launch until October 2020, when the first licensed dispensaries began sales.

Adult-Use Legalization via Amendment 3 (2022-2023)

Missouri voters approved Amendment 3 in November 2022 with 53% support, legalizing adult-use cannabis sales and automatically expunging certain prior marijuana convictions. The amendment allowed existing medical license holders to convert to "comprehensive" licenses serving both medical and adult-use customers, giving established operators like Good Day Farm a significant first-mover advantage. Adult-use sales began February 3, 2023, with minimal regulatory delay. The amendment imposed a 6% retail tax on adult-use sales (in addition to the existing 4% medical tax), generating substantial new revenue. First-year adult-use sales exceeded $1 billion, according to DHSS data, with total cannabis sales (medical and adult-use combined) reaching approximately $1.2 billion in 2025. The rapid transition to adult-use sales created operational challenges for dispensaries and cultivators. Demand surged beyond initial projections, leading to product shortages, quality control concerns, and increased regulatory scrutiny. DHSS conducted more frequent compliance inspections and issued several license suspensions for testing violations and inventory discrepancies in 2023 and 2024.

Good Day Farm's Multi-State Growth (2021-2025)

Good Day Farm pursued aggressive expansion following its Missouri entry. The company acquired licenses in Mississippi in 2021 after the state legislature enacted a medical marijuana program via Senate Bill 2095, overriding the governor's veto. Good Day Farm opened its first Mississippi dispensary in Olive Branch in January 2023. In Louisiana, Good Day Farm secured one of the state's limited pharmacy-based dispensary licenses in 2022, opening a location in Shreveport in mid-2023. Louisiana's unique regulatory structure, which restricts dispensary licenses to licensed pharmacies, created high barriers to entry and limited competition. By early 2026, Good Day Farm operated approximately 25 locations across four states, with eight dispensaries in Missouri concentrated in Springfield, Columbia, Kansas City, and St. Louis markets. The company employed over 400 people and cultivated dozens of proprietary strains, positioning itself as a regional MSO focused on the South and Midwest.

Regulatory Scrutiny and Prior Complaints (2023-2025)

Good Day Farm faced increasing regulatory scrutiny in Missouri beginning in 2023, including DHSS inspections that identified testing discrepancies and labeling violations at multiple locations. In August 2023, DHSS issued a notice of violation to Good Day Farm's cultivation facility in Hillsboro, Missouri, citing failures to maintain required testing records and discrepancies between reported THC potency and independent laboratory results. The company disputed the findings and requested an administrative hearing, which was resolved through a consent agreement in December 2023. Good Day Farm paid a $15,000 fine and agreed to enhanced testing protocols and third-party audits of its quality control procedures. Consumer complaints also increased during this period. The Missouri Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division received approximately 40 complaints against Good Day Farm between January 2023 and April 2026, according to public records requests. Complaints alleged mislabeled products, inaccurate THC percentages, moldy flower, and unresponsive customer service. While DHSS investigated several complaints, no additional enforcement actions were publicly disclosed prior to the May 2026 lawsuit filing.

The May 2026 Class-Action Filing

On May 16, 2026, a group of Missouri consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against Good Day Farm in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri. The complaint, filed by Springfield-based attorneys, alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010 et seq., and common law fraud. The named plaintiffs seek to represent all Missouri consumers who purchased cannabis products from Good Day Farm dispensaries between February 2023 and May 2026. The complaint alleges that Good Day Farm systematically overstated THC potency levels on product labels, sold products contaminated with pesticides and mold, and made false advertising claims about organic cultivation methods and strain genetics. Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective advertising and enhanced testing, and attorneys' fees.

Key Players

Good Day Farm

Good Day Farm is a privately held, vertically integrated cannabis operator with licenses in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The company was founded by a group of Arkansas investors including John Hardin, who serves as chief executive officer, and Brad Melshenker, who serves as chief operating officer. Both executives have backgrounds in retail and agriculture but entered the cannabis industry specifically through Good Day Farm. The company operates cultivation facilities totaling approximately 150,000 square feet of canopy across its four-state footprint. Its Missouri cultivation facility in Hillsboro produces flower, pre-rolls, and wholesale biomass for infused product manufacturers. Good Day Farm also operates its own processing and manufacturing operations, producing vape cartridges, edibles, and concentrates under its house brand. Good Day Farm has positioned itself as a premium brand emphasizing craft cultivation, small-batch processing, and customer education. The company's marketing materials highlight its "seed-to-sale" vertical integration and proprietary strain development program.

Named Plaintiffs

The lawsuit identifies three named plaintiffs, all Missouri residents who purchased products from Good Day Farm dispensaries in Springfield and Columbia between 2023 and 2026. The plaintiffs are represented by a Springfield law firm specializing in consumer protection and class-action litigation. The complaint does not identify the plaintiffs by name in publicly available filings, referring to them only as "Consumer A," "Consumer B," and "Consumer C" to protect their privacy given cannabis's continued federal prohibition.

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services

DHSS serves as the state's cannabis regulatory authority under both Amendment 2 and Amendment 3. The agency's Section for Medical Marijuana Regulation oversees licensing, compliance inspections, product testing requirements, and enforcement actions. DHSS employs approximately 60 full-time staff dedicated to cannabis regulation, including compliance investigators, licensing specialists, and administrative law judges (ALJs) who conduct hearings on license denials and disciplinary actions. DHSS maintains regulatory authority over testing laboratories, requiring all cannabis products to undergo testing for potency, pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, and residual solvents before retail sale. The agency's testing requirements are codified in 19 CSR 30-95.030, which establishes action levels for contaminants and mandates that product labels accurately reflect laboratory test results.

Missouri Attorney General's Office

The Missouri Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division enforces the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and investigates consumer complaints across all industries, including cannabis. While the division has historically taken a hands-off approach to cannabis-related complaints due to federal prohibition concerns, it has increased enforcement activity following adult-use legalization in 2023. Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who took office in January 2023, has stated that his office will enforce consumer protection laws in the cannabis industry "just as vigorously as in any other sector," according to public statements made in 2024. The division has not intervened in the Good Day Farm lawsuit as of May 2026 but could file an amicus brief or pursue parallel enforcement action if the allegations are substantiated.

Plaintiffs' Counsel

The lawsuit is being prosecuted by a Springfield law firm with experience in consumer class actions, product liability, and mass tort litigation. The firm previously represented plaintiffs in class actions against automotive manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and financial services providers. This represents the firm's first cannabis-related class action, reflecting the industry's maturation and increasing exposure to traditional consumer protection litigation.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Missouri Merchandising Practices Act

The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010 et seq., prohibits deceptive business practices and provides consumers with a private right of action to recover damages. The statute defines unlawful practices broadly to include "the act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce." The MMPA allows consumers to recover actual damages or $500 per violation, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees. In class actions, courts may award punitive damages for willful violations. Missouri courts have interpreted the MMPA broadly, finding violations based on misleading advertising, product defects, and failures to disclose material information. Notably, the MMPA does not exempt cannabis businesses from its coverage. While some states have enacted specific exemptions for cannabis operators due to federal prohibition concerns, Missouri has not. This creates potential liability for cannabis businesses under the same consumer protection standards that apply to traditional retailers.

Cannabis Testing and Labeling Requirements

Missouri regulations require all cannabis products to undergo testing by state-licensed laboratories before retail sale. Testing requirements are set forth in 19 CSR 30-95.030 and include:

• Potency testing for THC, THCA, CBD, and other cannabinoids
• Pesticide screening for over 100 compounds with specific action levels
• Heavy metals testing for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury
• Microbial testing for E. coli, Salmonella, and total yeast/mold counts
• Residual solvent testing for concentrates and extracts
• Mycotoxin testing for aflatoxins and ochratoxin A

Products that fail testing cannot be sold and must be destroyed or remediated under DHSS supervision. Laboratories must report all test results to DHSS's seed-to-sale tracking system within 24 hours. Labeling requirements mandate that product packages display total THC content, serving sizes for edibles, activation time, and warnings about impairment and pregnancy risks. Labels must accurately reflect laboratory test results, with a tolerance of ±15% for potency claims. Mislabeling constitutes a violation subject to fines, license suspension, or revocation.

Class Action Certification Standards

To obtain class certification under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 52.08, plaintiffs must demonstrate numerosity (a class too large for individual joinder), commonality (common questions of law or fact), typicality (representative claims are typical of the class), and adequacy (representatives will fairly protect class interests). Plaintiffs must also show that common questions predominate over individual issues and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. Cannabis class actions face unique challenges. Federal prohibition may discourage some class members from participating due to concerns about admitting illegal conduct (under federal law). Courts must also address whether state consumer protection laws can be enforced against cannabis businesses given the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, though Missouri courts have generally rejected preemption arguments in cannabis cases.

Federal Prohibition and State Enforcement

Cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812, making cultivation, distribution, and possession federal crimes punishable by imprisonment and fines. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not contain an exception for state-legal cannabis businesses. However, the Department of Justice has generally declined to prosecute state-legal cannabis operators who comply with state regulations, following guidance established in the 2013 Cole Memorandum (rescinded in 2018 but largely followed in practice). The DOJ's August 2024 NPRM proposing to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III under the Administrative Procedure Act would not legalize cannabis but would remove certain criminal penalties and allow businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 280E. State courts have consistently held that federal prohibition does not preempt state consumer protection laws or prevent state-law contract and tort claims arising from cannabis transactions. Missouri courts have enforced contracts between cannabis businesses and permitted tort claims by consumers injured by defective cannabis products.

Allegations and Claims

The complaint alleges that Good Day Farm engaged in systematic misrepresentation of product potency, sold contaminated products, and made false advertising claims about cultivation methods. According to the complaint, plaintiffs purchased flower products labeled with THC percentages ranging from 25% to 32%, but independent laboratory testing commissioned by plaintiffs' counsel showed actual THC levels between 15% and 22%, representing discrepancies of 30% to 50% below labeled amounts. The complaint alleges these discrepancies exceed Missouri's ±15% labeling tolerance and constitute material misrepresentations under the MMPA. The complaint further alleges that Good Day Farm sold products contaminated with pesticides including myclobutanil and imidacloprid at levels exceeding Missouri's action limits established in 19 CSR 30-95.030. Plaintiffs claim they suffered adverse health effects including respiratory irritation and headaches after consuming contaminated products. Additionally, the complaint challenges Good Day Farm's marketing claims that its products are "organically grown" and "pesticide-free." The complaint alleges these claims are false and misleading because Good Day Farm used synthetic pesticides and fertilizers prohibited under organic certification standards, and because no federal organic certification exists for cannabis due to its Schedule I status. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as "all Missouri consumers who purchased cannabis products from Good Day Farm dispensaries between February 1, 2023, and May 16, 2026." The complaint estimates the class includes tens of thousands of consumers who made hundreds of thousands of purchases during the class period. Plaintiffs seek actual damages based on the difference between the price paid and the value of the products received, statutory damages of $500 per violation under the MMPA, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective advertising and enhanced testing protocols, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Good Day Farm's Response

Good Day Farm has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit as of May 16, 2026, but the company issued a public statement denying the allegations and defending its quality control practices. In a statement provided to the Springfield News-Leader, Good Day Farm said it "strongly disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and will vigorously defend against these claims." The company stated that all of its products undergo testing by state-licensed laboratories in compliance with Missouri regulations and that it maintains "industry-leading quality control and testing protocols." The statement emphasized that Good Day Farm has "served hundreds of thousands of satisfied customers across Missouri" and that the company "stands behind the quality and safety of our products." The company did not address specific allegations regarding potency discrepancies or pesticide contamination. Legal experts anticipate Good Day Farm will file a motion to dismiss challenging class certification and arguing that individual issues predominate over common questions. The company may also assert affirmative defenses including reliance on state-licensed laboratory testing, compliance with regulatory requirements, and lack of consumer reliance on advertising claims.

Market and Business Implications

Impact on Good Day Farm's Operations

The lawsuit poses significant financial and operational risks for Good Day Farm, potentially affecting its ability to maintain licenses, secure financing, and pursue expansion. If plaintiffs succeed in certifying a class and obtaining a judgment, damages could reach tens of millions of dollars based on the estimated class size and Missouri's $500 statutory minimum per violation. Such a judgment could exceed Good Day Farm's insurance coverage and available capital, potentially forcing asset sales or bankruptcy. Even without an adverse judgment, the litigation will impose substantial legal costs and management distraction. Class actions typically take 18 to 36 months to resolve through trial or settlement, requiring extensive discovery, expert testimony, and motion practice. Good Day Farm will need to produce internal documents, testing records, and employee testimony, potentially revealing proprietary business information and quality control deficiencies. The lawsuit may also trigger regulatory scrutiny. DHSS could initiate its own investigation based on the allegations, potentially leading to license suspension or revocation if violations are substantiated. Missouri's licensing regulations require operators to maintain "good moral character" and comply with all applicable laws; a finding of consumer fraud could jeopardize license renewal.

MSO Sector Implications

The lawsuit highlights legal exposure risks facing multi-state operators as they scale across jurisdictions with varying regulatory standards and enforcement priorities. MSOs have consolidated significant market share in newly legal states by leveraging capital advantages and operational expertise, but this growth creates larger targets for class-action litigation. Cannabis class actions remain relatively rare compared to other consumer industries, but they are increasing as markets mature and plaintiffs' attorneys develop expertise in cannabis law. Recent class actions have targeted MSOs including Curaleaf, Trulieve, and Cresco Labs over issues including pesticide contamination, false advertising, and labor law violations. For investors, the lawsuit underscores due diligence risks in evaluating MSO compliance and quality control systems. Many MSOs operate under thin margins due to 280E tax burdens, high state taxes, and price compression from oversupply. Class-action liability could eliminate profitability and impair enterprise value, particularly for smaller regional operators like Good Day Farm that lack the capital reserves of top-tier MSOs.

Testing Laboratory Industry

The lawsuit raises questions about the accuracy and reliability of cannabis testing laboratories, which operate under state licensing but lack federal oversight or standardization. Cannabis testing has been plagued by inconsistency, with studies showing significant variation in potency results for the same sample tested by different laboratories. A 2024 study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research found that THC potency results for identical samples varied by up to 40% across California laboratories, suggesting systematic bias toward inflated results to satisfy cultivator clients. Missouri licenses approximately 15 testing laboratories, but the state does not require proficiency testing or inter-laboratory comparisons to validate accuracy. Laboratories compete for business from cultivators and processors, creating potential conflicts of interest that may incentivize inflated potency results to attract clients. If the Good Day Farm lawsuit substantiates allegations of potency inflation, it could prompt regulatory reforms including mandatory proficiency testing, blind sample audits, and restrictions on laboratory-cultivator financial relationships. Such reforms would increase testing costs but improve consumer confidence in product labeling.

Insurance and Risk Management

The lawsuit highlights the importance of product liability and errors-and-omissions insurance for cannabis operators, though coverage remains expensive and limited due to federal prohibition. Most cannabis businesses cannot obtain traditional commercial general liability insurance due to underwriter concerns about federal illegality. Specialized cannabis insurers offer coverage, but policies typically exclude intentional misconduct, regulatory violations, and punitive damages. Premiums for product liability coverage range from $15,000 to $50,000 annually for mid-sized operators, with deductibles of $25,000 to $100,000. Good Day Farm's insurance coverage will be a key factor in the lawsuit's resolution. If the company lacks adequate coverage, it may be forced to settle quickly to avoid catastrophic liability. If coverage is available, insurers may assume defense costs and settlement negotiations, potentially leading to a faster resolution.

What Experts Say

Cannabis attorneys and industry consultants view the lawsuit as a predictable evolution of consumer protection enforcement in maturing state markets. According to Hilary Bricken, a cannabis attorney at Harris Bricken in Los Angeles, consumer class actions will become more common as state markets mature and plaintiffs' attorneys develop expertise in cannabis law. Bricken noted in a 2025 industry conference presentation that cannabis businesses face the same consumer protection obligations as traditional retailers, despite federal prohibition. Andrew Kline, a regulatory consultant and former DHSS policy advisor, stated in a 2024 interview that Missouri's testing requirements are "among the most comprehensive in the nation" but that enforcement has been inconsistent due to limited agency resources. Kline suggested that DHSS should implement mandatory proficiency testing for laboratories and increase unannounced compliance inspections. Dr. Jeffrey Raber, a cannabis chemist and laboratory consultant, has written extensively about potency inflation in cannabis testing. In a 2025 article in Cannabis Science and Technology, Raber argued that competitive pressures incentivize laboratories to report inflated THC results and that regulatory reforms including blind audits and standardized reference materials are necessary to ensure accuracy. Consumer advocates have welcomed the lawsuit as an important accountability mechanism. John Payne, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom (the group that sponsored Amendment 3), stated in a 2024 public forum that consumer protection enforcement is essential to maintaining public trust in legal cannabis markets. Payne emphasized that patients and consumers deserve accurate product information and that operators who engage in deceptive practices should face consequences. Industry representatives have expressed concern that the lawsuit could prompt overly restrictive regulations that increase costs without improving safety. Andrew Mullins, executive director of MoCannTrade (Missouri's cannabis industry association), stated in a 2025 legislative hearing that the industry supports reasonable testing standards but opposes "one-size-fits-all mandates that ignore scientific realities and impose unnecessary costs on small businesses."

What's Next

The lawsuit will proceed through standard class-action litigation stages, beginning with Good Day Farm's response and plaintiffs' motion for class certification, likely extending into 2027 or beyond. Key upcoming milestones include:

• June 2026: Good Day Farm's answer and potential motion to dismiss due
• July-September 2026: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting briefing
• October 2026-January 2027: Discovery on class certification issues, including Good Day Farm's testing records and sales data
• February-April 2027: Class certification hearing and court ruling
• Mid-2027 onward: Merits discovery, expert depositions, and motion for summary judgment (if class is certified)
• Late 2027 or 2028: Trial or settlement

Settlement is likely before trial. Class-action defendants typically settle to avoid the cost, uncertainty, and negative publicity of trial. Settlement negotiations may begin after class certification or even before if Good Day Farm faces financial pressure or regulatory threats. If the case proceeds to trial, key factual disputes will include whether Good Day Farm's testing practices complied with Missouri regulations, whether potency discrepancies were material to consumer purchasing decisions, and whether Good Day Farm acted willfully or negligently. Expert testimony from chemists, laboratory directors, and marketing experts will be critical. Regulatory developments may also affect the litigation. If DHSS initiates its own investigation and finds violations, those findings could be admissible in the civil case and strengthen plaintiffs' claims. Conversely, if DHSS clears Good Day Farm, the company may use that determination as evidence of regulatory compliance. The lawsuit may also prompt legislative or regulatory reforms. Missouri lawmakers could consider bills to strengthen testing requirements, impose penalties for potency inflation, or create a state-administered testing program to eliminate laboratory conflicts of interest. Such reforms could moot some of the lawsuit's claims or provide additional grounds for liability.

State-by-State Context

Missouri

Missouri operates a comprehensive medical and adult-use cannabis program under constitutional amendments approved by voters in 2018 and 2022. The state licenses approximately 200 dispensaries, 60 cultivation facilities, and 80 infused product manufacturers as of May 2026. Adult-use sales launched in February 2023, generating over $1 billion in first-year revenue. Missouri imposes a 4% tax on medical sales and a 6% tax on adult-use sales, in addition to standard state and local sales taxes. Possession limits are 3 ounces for medical patients and 3 ounces for adult-use consumers (age 21+). Home cultivation is permitted for medical patients (up to 6 flowering plants) but not for adult-use consumers. Testing requirements are codified in 19 CSR 30-95.030 and are enforced by DHSS through compliance inspections and laboratory audits. Missouri does not require proficiency testing or blind sample audits, though DHSS has authority to implement such requirements through rulemaking.

Arkansas

Arkansas operates a medical-only cannabis program established by the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment (Issue 6) approved by voters in 2016. The state licenses 38 dispensaries and 8 cultivation facilities, with no expansion planned. Adult-use legalization measures failed in 2022 and 2024. Arkansas imposes a 6.5% privilege tax on medical marijuana sales and requires testing for potency, pesticides, and microbials. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration oversees the program, with the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division handling compliance and enforcement. Good Day Farm operates cultivation and dispensary licenses in Arkansas, making it one of the state's largest vertically integrated operators. The company has not faced class-action litigation or significant regulatory enforcement in Arkansas as of May 2026.

Mississippi

Mississippi enacted a medical marijuana program in 2022 via Senate Bill 2095 after the state Supreme Court invalidated a 2020 voter-approved initiative on procedural grounds. The program began licensed sales in January 2023 and licenses approximately 100 dispensaries and 20 cultivation facilities. Mississippi imposes a 5% excise tax on medical marijuana sales and requires testing for potency, pesticides, heavy metals, and microbials. The Mississippi Department of Health oversees the program, with the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics handling enforcement. Good Day Farm operates one dispensary in Olive Branch, Mississippi, near the Tennessee border. The company has not faced litigation or enforcement actions in Mississippi as of May 2026.

Louisiana

Louisiana operates a limited medical marijuana program that restricts dispensary licenses to licensed pharmacies. The state licenses approximately 35 pharmacy-based dispensaries and two cultivation facilities operated by Louisiana State University and Southern University. Louisiana does not impose a specific marijuana tax but requires pharmacies to collect standard sales tax. Testing requirements are established by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry and include potency, pesticides, and microbials. Good Day Farm operates one pharmacy-based dispensary in Shreveport, Louisiana. The company has not faced litigation or enforcement actions in Louisiana as of May 2026.

Further Reading

• Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Medical Marijuana Program: https://health.mo.gov/safety/medical-marijuana/
• Missouri Revised Statutes § 407.010 et seq. (Missouri Merchandising Practices Act): https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=407
• 19 CSR 30-95.030 (Missouri Cannabis Testing Requirements): https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/adrules/csr/current/19csr/19c30-95.pdf
• Missouri Amendment 3 (Adult-Use Legalization) Full Text: https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/2022-051.pdf
• U.S. Department of Justice Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Cannabis Rescheduling (August 2024): https://www.federalregister.gov/
• 21 U.S.C. § 812 (Controlled Substances Act Schedules): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812
• 26 U.S.C. § 280E (Tax Code Provision Affecting Cannabis Businesses): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280E
• Good Day Farm Corporate Website: https://gooddayfarm.com/
• MoCannTrade (Missouri Cannabis Industry Association): https://www.mocanntrade.org/
• Journal of Cannabis Research (peer-reviewed testing studies): https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/