Minnesota Update – Online Hemp Sales Are Prohibited
Update to Minnesota Hemp Licensing Blog
In our recent blog artice about Minnesota licensing, we outlined new restrictions for hemp businesses in Minnesota. Notably, we stated that on September 24, 2025, the state’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) representatives clarified that:
- The OCM does not license out-of-state businesses.
- Direct-to-consumer online sales are prohibited.
- Out-of-state manufacturers must work with a Minnesota-licensed cannabis or LPHE wholesaler to import products.
This is a major shift for out-of-state hemp companies that were once allowed to register under the older Section 151.72 framework.
This update is to confirm that online product shipping is prohibited (though licensed delivery remains allowed), and out-of-state companies can no longer apply for a license.
Since our earlier post about Minnesota, the OCM has clarified that the first position above stems from age-verification requirements and the prohibition against selling lower-potency hemp edibles (LPHEs) to visibly intoxicated individuals. By OCM interpretation, this makes the shipment of products purchased online unlawful since it is impossible to determine if someone is “visibly intoxicated” from afar.
At an OCM virtual meeting on October 8, 2025, officials confirmed shipping is banned and that LPHE applicants must have a physical location in Minnesota, with limited exceptions for delivery-only licensees. OCM also stated LPHE business owners cannot own any part of a cannabis business in Minnesota, as supported by statute. Many social equity applicants are still waiting for the next cannabis licensing lottery amid federal cannabis reform uncertainty, and they have tough decisions ahead. The LPHE application deadline is October 31, 2025.
October 9, 2025
This article was written by Kight Law attorney Amber Lengacher. Kight Law represents hemp businesses in the US and throughout the world.
How can that be enforced given that delivery via USPS is legal in all 50 states? I suspect when this new legislation is challenged in court a judge will question the state’s authority over federal.
Dave – Good question. There have been several court rulings on the issue of what states can and cannot do with respect to hemp regulations. Mostly, they have allowed states to adopt their own rules, regardless of federal law and federal hemp definitions. This is why it’s super important for state representatives to understand how important this industry is. Their vote matters. -Rod
I would imagine this will be easily overturned in court considering that On August 17, 2022, in Northeast Patients Group, et al v. United Cannabis Patients and Caregivers of Maine, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District of Maine’s holding that the Maine Medical Marijuana Act’s residency requirement violates the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, a legal doctrine that courts have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against or excessively burden interstate commerce. By ruling that the Constitution’s dormant commerce clause applies to the medical cannabis industry, the district court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a Maine federal judge’s August 2021 ruling striking down Maine’s residency requirement for cannabis business owners, saying it was a clear violation of the constitutional doctrine that limits states’ power over interstate commerce.
I don’t see how this is any different than what Minnesota is doing, am I off base?
In a Federal District Court very possibly but in a Minnesota court it’ll be upheld.