Cross-sectional analysis reveals common regulatory violations in online cannabis retailer promotions across Canada, suggesting enforcement gaps.
Background Canada legalized non-medical cannabis in 2018, with marketing and promotion regulated under the Cannabis Act . However, little is known about the promotional practices of licensed cannabis retailers. This study analyzed the online content of Canadian cannabis retailer websites and assessed apparent violations of federal marketing regulations. Methods A cross-sectional content analysis of cannabis retailer websites across all 13 Canadian provinces and territories. Of the 3599 operational licensed cannabis-retail retailers (3368 private and 231 government operated) in Canada in April 2025, we included each of the government-operated cannabis retailer websites ( n = 8) and a random sub-sample of private retailer websites ( n = 145). Retailer website content was extracted using a standardized codebook comprising 13 promotion-related categories derived from the Cannabis Act to identify apparent violations. Results One or more apparent marketing violations were identified on 97% of cannabis retailer websites. Apparent violations were somewhat less common among government-operated retailers (75%) than private retailers (97%). Age verification was absent on 8.5% of websites, all of which were privately operated. Inducement-related content was most common apparent violation (86%), followed by endorsements or testimonials (46%), lifestyle promotion (23%), youth-appealing content (23%), and health or cosmetic benefit claims (22%). Interpretation Promotional content that may contravene the Cannabis Act was commonly observed on Canadian cannabis retailer websites. These findings suggest that gaps exist between regulatory standards and online retail practices within Canada’s legal cannabis market. As more jurisdictions consider cannabis legalization, this evidence can help inform the development and enforcement of cannabis promotion-related regulations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
MacDonald-Spracklin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: