Vertosa Faces Lawsuit Over Cannabis-Derived Inputs

Vertosa isn’t a household name like the big flower brands, but within the ingredients world it has become a linchpin for beverage and edible makers looking to infuse consistent, shelf-stable cannabinoid effects into their products. Founded in 2018 by Dr. Harold Han and Ben Larson, the company grew from a lab in a closet to a GMP-certified facility producing emulsified cannabinoids — essentially water-compatible versions of THC and other cannabinoids that can suspend evenly in drinks, gummies, and other ingestibles. They currently work with over 150 brands across North America and support infusion in 18 markets, with infrastructure to handle distillate, resin, and rosin to turn them into usable emulsions for products like beverages and edibles.

Vertosa’s pitch has always been about solving one of the industry’s harder problems: making hydrophobic cannabinoid molecules behave in aqueous products while maintaining onset time, stability, and dosage control. They don’t make the finished consumer products, but they make the ingredients that let others do it.

What Vertosa Claims It Does

On its own site and in industry materials, Vertosa emphasizes the following:

• It makes shelf-stable emulsified cannabinoids tailored for beverage and edible applications.

• It positions its Delta-9 THC and other cannabinoids as hemp-derived, meaning they are extracted or converted from compliant hemp biomass under the 2018 Farm Bill definition (≤0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis).

• The company asserts compliance and traceability, presenting documentation from “seed to sale” for hemp-derived inputs and promoting rigorous supplier vetting.

In industry circles, this positioning allowed Vertosa and its customers to operate in both regulated cannabis markets and broader hemp-THC markets that — until recent legal volatility — enjoyed federal legality under Farm Bill provisions. Vertosa also helped advise product makers on formulation, onset, and label accuracy — the currency of trust in an industry still marred by quality inconsistency.

The Lawsuit: What’s Alleged

Enter CCT Sciences, a Florida manufacturer of hemp-derived cannabinoids. In January 2026, it filed a federal complaint in the Middle District of Florida claiming Vertosa engaged in false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. The heart of the claim: Vertosa’s Delta-9 THC-infusion products were marketed as “natural” and “hemp-derived,” but are allegedly cannabis-derived instead — a material fact in an industry built on that distinction.

Key points from the complaint and related discussions:

• The lawsuit asserts Vertosa’s own chain-of-custody documents and Certificates of Analysis (COAs) show a cannabinoid profile (presence of THCv and absence of CBDv) inconsistent with true hemp-derived distillate and instead consistent with marijuana-derived THC distillate.

• The plaintiff contends Vertosa’s pricing, supply economics, and labeling practices don’t make sense if the inputs were legitimately hemp-sourced — suggesting economic circumstantial evidence of deceptive sourcing.

• Although agricultural law defines hemp in contrast to cannabis based on THC limits, in practice establishing the chemical provenance of distilled cannabinoid inputs is scientifically and legally fraught — not all analytical profiles are universally conclusive, and conversion chemistry can blur the lines.

At its core, this isn’t merely a dispute about marketing language; it’s an attempt to force courts to define when the line between hemp-derived and cannabis-derived cannabinoids is crossed and whether commercial actors can leverage ambiguity for competitive advantage.

Why This Matters

To brands and formulators, whether a THC infusion is legitimately hemp-derived isn’t just marketing copy — it’s a legal difference with enormous regulatory and compliance implications. Federally, cannabis remains controlled outside state markets; the distinction between hemp-derived and cannabis-derived THC determines whether products can be transported across state lines or sold under hemp law vs. cannabis law. The forthcoming expiration of some hemp-THC federal protections in November, and evolving enforcement priorities, only heightens the stakes.

If the lawsuit proves that Vertosa’s products were misrepresented, it could ripple through the ingredient supply chain — forcing reinterpretation of compliance standards, triggering liability for brands that relied on those ingredients, and inviting deeper scrutiny of how cannabinoid inputs are sourced and labeled across the industry.

What Comes Next

The case is still in its early stages. While the complaint frames a detailed scientific critique, proving chemical “provenance” in court is difficult. Defense will likely argue that analytical differences can stem from conversion processes, lab variability, or legitimate methods of deriving compliant cannabinoids. The final ruling could set a precedent on how courts evaluate hemp vs. cannabis origin claims and establish legal benchmarks around cannabinoid source disclosures.

In an industry that’s part science lab, part legal labyrinth, how this courtroom battle resolves may define the next chapter in how cannabinoid ingredients are marketed, labeled, and trusted.