By Michael Botchev, Regional Director of Sales
For cannabis and hemp brands operating across multiple states, growth at the start of a new year often exposes weaknesses in testing and compliance strategies.
New markets, formulation changes, and higher production volumes tend to hit at the same time, often alongside updated or shifting state regulations. Growth creates opportunity, but it also introduces risk. Without the right testing approach, brands can face failed batches, delayed launches, or unwanted regulatory attention.
Across our multi-state laboratory network, we see the same issues. These challenges rarely come from negligence. More often, they’re the result of applying one-size-fits-all assumptions to a regulatory environment that varies dramatically by state. What works in one market can easily fail in another.
ACT LAB works with brands to identify these pain points early and address them strategically. The goal is simple: consistent results, regulatory confidence, and products that hold up. The brands that scale successfully treat compliance as a strategy, not a checkbox.
Mistake #1: Assuming Sampling Expectations Are the Same in Every State
Sampling is one of the most overlooked parts of cannabis testing, especially for multi-state operators. Yet it plays a critical role in data quality and compliance, with wildly different requirements in each state. This cannot be an after-thought.
Differences exist in who is allowed to collect samples, how oversight is applied, and how representative a sample must be. Treating sampling as a uniform process across markets is where many brands run into problems.
Illinois takes a lab-directed approach, where samples are collected by the testing laboratory under tightly controlled procedures, including specific requirements for batch size and representation. In states like Washington and Delaware, licensees are permitted to collect and submit their own samples to third party labs. In those markets, responsibility shifts to the operator to ensure proper sampling and chain of custody. A process that works in one state may fall short in another without being immediately obvious.
Pennsylvania and New York highlight these differences even further. Pennsylvania follows a strict batch-based model, particularly for flower. Batch sizes are capped, and each batch requires its own Certificate of Analysis. A production run of 100 batches results in 100 separate COAs, reinforcing consistent production controls and representative sampling throughout.
New York allows more flexibility in how products are prepared for testing. Operators are not required to fully package an entire production run before sampling, and only a subset of units may be submitted for analysis. In practice, a single representative sample can support a much larger number of finished units, sometimes covering what would be treated as many separate batches in Pennsylvania.
Both approaches are compliant within their respective regulatory frameworks. The risk comes from applying the same internal sampling strategy across states with very different expectations. That is where gaps in data quality, confidence, and consistency begin to emerge. Brands that treat sampling as a scientific process rather than a procedural step are better positioned to maintain reliable data across state lines.
Mistake #2: Overlooking How State Rules Interact with Formulation Changes
Product reformulation is common as brands respond to consumer preferences, cost pressure, or state specific restrictions. Even small changes can carry meaningful testing implications, and those implications are not always consistent from one state to another.
Adjustments to carrier oils, emulsifiers, or flavoring agents can influence potency, homogeneity, microbial risk, and shelf-life stability. Some states require additional testing or apply tighter limits based on product category, while others do not. When brands make formulation changes without reassessing testing scope, they may fall out of compliance in certain markets without realizing it. This shock can be easily mitigated through R&D support from a trusted third-party testing lab.
Ohio provides a useful example. As regulators continue to refine rules around product categories and THC thresholds, reformulating concentrates or infused products to meet updated limits can unintentionally affect cannabinoid concentration or residual solvent behavior. Brands that focus on cost optimization or potency targets without revisiting their full testing panel may encounter compliance issues as enforcement becomes more defined.
Formulation changes should always prompt a broader review of testing strategy, particularly for products sold across multiple regulatory environments. Scientific principles remain consistent, but regulatory expectations do not. Brands that evaluate how formulation adjustments interact with state specific rules are better positioned to maintain compliance, consistency, and confidence in their data.
Mistake #3: Treating Certificates of Analysis as Interchangeable Across States
Another common misstep cannabis brands can make involves assuming that each state requires the same testing information to be included on the product’s Certificate of Analysis (COA). The reality is that states differ in accepted testing methods, reporting limits, number of required analytes, and definitions of compliance. A COA that meets requirements in one jurisdiction may not satisfy another’s reporting or method validation standards.
For example, Florida’s medical cannabis testing requirements are among the strictest in the country with mandatory testing of finished products, rigorous testing for 67 pesticides, and strict regulations on the appearance and potency of edibles; criteria that differ from many other states. A COA generated by a third-party testing lab in another state may fail to meet Florida requirements due to differences in required analytes, action limits, or how moisture content, heavy metals, or microbial contaminants are reported.
Differences in analyte lists, detection limits, or uncertainty around testing requirements can create confusion, especially for multi-state operators attempting to standardize quality metrics.
Don’t just look at the results, but the context in which those results are generated. Interpreting lab data through a state-specific regulatory lens allows brands to make that data actionable while avoiding compliance gaps.
Mistake #4: Applying a Uniform Testing Strategy to Diverse Product Types and Markets
Multi state brands often pursue efficiency through standardization, but uniform testing strategies can create risk when applied without regard for product format or state specific expectations.
Microbial risk is not evaluated the same way for inhalable and ingestible products, and it is not treated consistently across state programs. States with more conservative public health frameworks often apply stricter microbial thresholds or broader testing requirements, while others allow more flexibility based on product type and intended use.
When brands apply the same microbial testing approach across all products and markets, gaps can emerge. What is acceptable for an edible in one state may be insufficient in another state. Without adjusting testing strategies to reflect both product format and regulatory risk, brands can face failed results, inconsistent data, or avoidable compliance issues.
In Michigan, for example, inhalable products are evaluated with heightened attention to microbial risk due to respiratory exposure. The state enforces specific action limits for organisms such as total yeast and mold. Under the state’s regulations, a flower batch that passed in another state may fail Michigan compliance testing because the microbial thresholds for inhalation are more conservative.
This gap becomes more pronounced with stability and shelf-life claims. Michigan may accept shorter, product-specific shelf-life assumptions for certain edibles, while requiring clearer justification or environmental controls for inhalable products.
Product-specific microbial limits and public health priorities in individual states mean that brands must tailor testing strategies by both product type and state. Relying on a single testing model increases the risk of failed batches, retesting delays, and unnecessary compliance costs.
To put it in my dad’s words, you can’t build a house with just a hammer.
Mistake #5: Viewing the Laboratory as a Final Gate Rather Than a Strategic Partner
In multi-state operations, testing challenges often arise when laboratories are brought in only at the end of the production cycle. When compliance issues surface late, options are limited, especially when products must meet different state requirements at the same time.
Early collaboration with a testing partner allows brands to anticipate regulatory differences, align testing scope, and interpret results within the context of each market. This approach helps reduce launch delays, unplanned reformulation, remediation, and repeat testing, while supporting more predictable outcomes across states.
When brands engage a laboratory early in the development process, regulatory differences can be identified before production begins. Testing scope can be aligned to state expectations, formulations adjusted proactively, and documentation structured to support compliance across markets.
Your lab should not be the final pass or fail checkpoint, but a risk management partner.
Starting 2026 with a Multi-State Quality Mindset
While regulations vary by state, consumer expectations do not. Cannabis products are expected to be safe, accurately labeled, and reliable. Testing missteps related to sampling, formulation, or data interpretation can undermine those expectations regardless of where a product is sold.
As markets mature, both regulators and consumers are paying closer attention to data integrity and quality systems. Brands that address testing risk proactively are better positioned not just for compliance, but for long term credibility.
The start of a new year is a natural point to reassess how testing supports growth across states and product categories. For cannabis and hemp brands operating in multiple markets, success depends on understanding where regulatory differences intersect with scientific realities.
Across ACT LAB’s national footprint, one principle remains consistent. Strong testing strategies are built on sound science, transparency, and adaptability. Brands that identify common testing mistakes and align their quality systems accordingly can reduce risk, protect consumers, and move into the year ahead with greater confidence.
Why ACT LAB is the Right Testing Partner for Your Brand in 2026
With operations in six states, ACT LAB sees firsthand how quickly testing complexity grows as brands expand. Many of the issues outlined in this article show up when testing is treated as a downstream requirement rather than part of product development. Our role is to help brands address those risks earlier, before they turn into failed batches or launch delays.
We support operators across the full lifecycle, from cultivation through formulation, with R&D and pre-compliance testing, microbial and environmental monitoring, and state specific regulatory guidance. That upstream work helps brands align to the realities of each market, rather than reacting after results are already in.
As the industry continues to mature, success will favor brands that build quality systems with intention. Not just to pass today’s requirements, but to withstand tighter oversight and higher expectations over time. ACT LAB works as a technical partner, not a final checkpoint, helping brands move faster, reduce risk, and make confident decisions as they scale.
To learn more about ACT LAB’s commitment to elevating cannabis innovation for the years ahead, connect with our team.
