Shay Aaron Gilmore

Shay Aaron Gilmore is a California cannabis and hemp business attorney based in San Francisco, serving operators, investors, and cannabis startups across California. He advises clients on DCC regulatory compliance, cannabis licensing, corporate formation, intellectual property, commercial contracts, and administrative law proceedings. Recognized by the Daily Journal as a Top 20 Cannabis Lawyer in California and by Super Lawyers® as a Top 100 Northern California attorney, he is a leading voice in California cannabis and hemp law.

Raising Money With a Buyer at the Door: A Canadian Cannabis Fight With Lessons for California Operators

Boardroom table with blank share certificates and a fountain pen beside a cannabis plant, as a figure in a suit waits outside a half-open door.

The Alberta Securities Commission refused to stop Aurora from selling shares during Curaleaf’s hostile bid. California operators rarely face tender offers, but raising money while a buyer is at the door raises the same questions: who can issue equity, what duties apply, and when new investors become owners in DCC’s eyes.

A $31.8 Million Cannabis Verdict Vanished in Federal Court. Some California Harvest Contracts Could Face the Same Test.

Signed cannabis harvest purchase agreement on a farm table beside an outdoor California cannabis farm at harvest

The Sixth Circuit erased a $31.8 million jury verdict for a licensed Michigan grower, holding that federal courts cannot enforce contracts to buy marijuana illegally. California Civil Code § 1550.5 protects cannabis contracts in state court, but a buyer that removes the case to federal court can still raise federal illegality. Here is what California harvest and supply contracts need this season.

New in the Daily Journal: The Cannabis Laws of the 2026 California Legislative Session

A close-up of a dried cannabis bud in front of a blurred California state flag with its grizzly bear and "California Republic" lettering, illustrating California's 2026 cannabis legislation.

My Daily Journal article covers the cannabis laws from California’s 2026 legislative session: packaging, beverage labeling, laboratory testing, hemp cannabinoids and enforcement. Most changes take effect in 2027 or later.

California Cannabis Consolidation: My New Chambers Analysis

In a new Chambers and Partners article, California cannabis attorney Shay Aaron Gilmore examines how consolidation, regulatory pressure, and distressed exits are reshaping the Western U.S. cannabis market, and what operators and investors should consider next.

AB 2249 Explained: California’s New “Attractive to Children” Cannabis Packaging Rules (Effective January 1, 2028)

Amber child-resistant cannabis container beside a legal document marked with red-ink strikethrough edits — illustrating California AB 2249 cannabis packaging rules.

California AB 2249 defines “attractive to children” for cannabis packaging effective January 1, 2028 — after the Senate stripped the binding pre-clearance process.

The View from Newsom’s Desk: The Cannabis Bills of 2026

Bill status scoreboard for the 2026 California cannabis legislative session showing 1 signed (AB 2249, packaging), 7 on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk (AB 2532, AB 2667, AB 1965, AB 2250, AB 2001, SB 936, SB 1272), and 4 dead for the year, with SB 1272 flagged as the strongest live veto signal. Signing deadline September 30, 2026 under Cal. Const. art. IV § 10(b)(2). Analysis by California cannabis attorney Shay Aaron Gilmore.

As the 2026 California legislative session closes, Governor Newsom has until September 30 to act on the year’s cannabis bills. One is already law: AB 2249 rewrites MAUCRSA’s “attractive to children” packaging standard. Seven wait on his desk — packaging labels (AB 2532), vape branding (AB 2667), testing labs (AB 1965), CBN classification (AB 2250), enforcement data-sharing (AB 2001), nitrous-linked license consequences (SB 936), and local administrative fines (SB 1272, drawing the strongest live veto signal). Four are dead for the year. A working scorecard from California cannabis attorney Shay Aaron Gilmore.

What SB 1064 and AB 179 Predict About DCC’s Combined Activities and Ownership Rulemaking

Open California cannabis regulation binder showing the state-mandated CA universal compliance symbol beside the California Bear Flag, illustrating SB 1064 and AB 179 rulemaking by the Department of Cannabis Control.

The California Department of Cannabis Control’s Summer 2026 rulemaking, “Combined Activities License and Ownership Updates,” will implement two 2024 statutes. SB 1064 (Ch. 991) authorizes combined cannabis activities at one premises under Business and Professions Code § 26001(m) and directs DCC to build a combined-activities licensing process under § 26070. AB 179 (Ch. 997) narrows Live Scan fingerprint requirements under § 26051.5(a)(1) so that only owners defined in § 26001(aq)(1)–(3) — the 20% aggregate holder, CEO or equivalent, and nonprofit board members — must submit fingerprints. The package will primarily amend 4 CCR § 15002 and § 15003 among 15 affected regulations. This post predicts what DCC’s proposed regulations will and will not include, applies the California APA purpose-and-scope constraints under Government Code §§ 11342.1 and 11342.2, and identifies the four drafting moves operators should prepare for now.

AB 1684 Cannabis Fines: What California Landlords and Tenants Need to Know

Flat editorial illustration of a small California commercial building with a red-banded municipal citation taped to the front door, palm trees on the horizon.

Since January 1, 2024, California cities can fine landlords and tenants $10,000 a day for unlicensed cannabis activity. Here’s what AB 1684 actually requires.

California’s Intoxicating Hemp Approach in Context: How the State’s Rules Compare to the Rest of the Country

Illustration of the state of California in deep teal against a background of hemp plants, with three legislative documents stacked to the right: California AB 8, federal Public Law 115-334 § 10113 (the 2018 Farm Bill's hemp provision), and federal Public Law 119-37 § 781.

When § 781 of P.L. 119-37 takes effect, the federal intoxicating-hemp market that the 2018 Farm Bill inadvertently opened will close. California’s AB 8 is the state’s answer — and, for operators here, the only legal off-ramp. This post explains how the three laws fit together and what cannabis and hemp businesses need to do before the deadline arrives.

How California Retailers Are Splitting One A-and-M-Designated License into Two Under the DCC’s Emergency Rule

Two dark wooden drawers side by side on a warm neutral background, one labeled "A" and the other labeled "M" on brass plates, illustrating the separation of a single California cannabis retail license into distinct Adult-Use and Medicinal licenses under DCC-2026-03-E.

California’s June 4, 2026 emergency rule lets a dual-designated A and M retailer hold each license in a separate entity on the same premises. Here’s how.

How a Distressed California Cannabis Business Restructures When Bankruptcy Court Is Out of Reach

Potted cannabis plant on the steps of a California courthouse, representing cannabis business restructuring and receivership under state law.

Distressed California cannabis firms can’t file federal bankruptcy—even after 2026 rescheduling. How workouts, ABCs, and receiverships work under state law.

The Hemp Ban’s Real Deadline Isn’t November 12. It’s September 13.

Desk calendar with a single date circled in red, beside an hourglass, a wooden gavel, scales of justice, and a hemp leaf on a dark wood desk — illustrating the federal hemp ban WARN Act layoff notice deadline for California businesses.

Every California hemp operator has November 12, 2026 circled — the day the federal hemp ban (Public Law 119-37) turns most intoxicating cannabinoid products into Schedule I controlled substances. But if the ban forces you to cut staff, your real legal deadline is roughly September 13, sixty days earlier, under the federal and California WARN Acts. Here’s why “the government banned my product” won’t excuse late notice, and how to plan the transition now.

Beyond Rescheduling: Who Keeps the “$1.6 Billion” in 280E Relief — the U.S. Treasury or Large Operators?

Scales of justice and federal Capitol building illustrating the cannabis 280E tax dispute over $1.6 billion in prior-year relief

Rescheduling won’t settle 280E — the unpublished IRS guidance will. Who keeps the disputed $1.6 billion, why prior-year refunds carry real risk, and what California operators should weigh before filing anything.

What the Enforcement Numbers Don’t Show: California’s Intoxicating Hemp Beverage Market and the July 1 Consolidation

Documentary photograph of a convenience-store cooler section where the center glass door bears a taped white notice reading "INTOXICATING HEMP" above its empty shelves, while the coolers on either side remain fully stocked with bottled and canned drinks.

California’s hemp-enforcement numbers look like a win. Read as Holmes’ “bad man” would, they map where the intoxicating hemp beverage trade moved — and how fast the July 1, 2026 consolidation closes in on it.

While Rescheduling Unifies Some Federal Tax Treatment, California Cannabis and Hemp Keep Diverging Along the THC Line

Cannabis plant before the U.S. Capitol with a federal tax form

Marijuana rescheduling now unifies some federal tax treatment, but California cannabis and hemp keep diverging along the THC line. This post walks operators and investors through what the shift means for entity choice, Section 280E, ownership disclosure, exits, and staying compliant — and why the cannabis-hemp divide is widening even as one federal tax answer emerges.