Industry Update: Where Things Stand and What Comes Next
I want to bring everyone up to speed and explain, clearly and honestly, where things stand and why the next phase of this case depends on collective action.

As some of you may know, Veterans Holdings / Veterans Choice Creations filed a lawsuit against the New York Office of Cannabis Management challenging the current implementation of the METRC seed-to-sale system. The case does not oppose track-and-trace itself. It focuses on how the system is being rolled out — including escalating costs, operational disruption, and requirements that were not part of the prior BioTrack framework.

 
Why the petition mattered
The petition was created to document something tangible for the Court and regulators: that the problems with the current METRC rollout are not isolated to one business. On that front, the petition did exactly what it was intended to do — it showed that many license holders across the supply chain are experiencing the same disruption.

At the same time, it’s important to be clear about what petitions can and cannot do in court. Petitions demonstrate concern and attention, but they are not evidence, and they do not place signers before the Court.

 
What happened at the TRO stage
We sought emergency relief through a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Court was willing to consider relief limited to a single company, but made clear it was not prepared to issue relief affecting the entire industry at that stage.

In a regulated supply chain like cannabis, relief for one business does not work in practice. Manufacturers, labs, distributors, and retailers all have to transact together. A company-only order would not have allowed meaningful operation, so we declined that limited relief.

That decision was not a ruling on the merits of the case.

 
Why the Preliminary Injunction (PI) matters
The Court has now scheduled a Preliminary Injunction hearing, expected in the beginning of January.

A PI is different from a TRO. At the PI stage, the Court:

Reviews a fuller factual record
Looks at ongoing, real-world harm
Considers whether current requirements should continue while the case proceeds
A Preliminary Injunction would not end track-and-trace. What it would do is limit the ongoing harm being caused by the current rollout by preventing disputed requirements from hardening into irreversible market structure while legality is adjudicated.

That is meaningful, stabilizing relief.

 
Why industry participation is essential
Courts are understandably reluctant to issue orders that affect many businesses unless those businesses are actually represented.

In practical terms, system-wide issues require system-wide representation. Broader participation gives the Court the ability to fully understand the scope and impact of what is happening across the industry.

 
How you can participate
If you are a license holder affected by the current rollout, there are three meaningful ways to engage:

1. Join or intervene in the lawsuit
This places your business directly before the Court and helps demonstrate the breadth of impact.

2. Submit an impact affidavit (without joining the lawsuit)
If you don’t want to be a named party, you can submit a sworn affidavit describing how the rollout is affecting your operations right now (paused orders, lab delays, cash-flow disruption, inability to transact, etc.).
These affidavits are evidence and can be submitted without making you a party to the case.

3. Contribute financially to support the PI phase
Litigation of this scale is expensive. Whether it’s $1 or $1,000, spreading the cost across the industry makes it possible to carry this forward properly. Any funds would only be collected through a mechanism formally set up and recommended by counsel — please be cautious of anyone attempting to solicit contributions outside of that process.

 
If a PI is granted
A Preliminary Injunction would help stop the bleeding — limiting immediate harm, stabilizing transactions, and preventing irreversible damage while the case proceeds.

 
If a PI is not granted
It’s important to say this clearly: even without a PI, this remains a very strong Article 78 case.

The record already reflects:

Implementation by guidance rather than clear rulemaking
Escalating and unauthorized cost burdens
Broken, asymmetric timelines
System-wide paralysis despite good-faith compliance
Article 78 cases are decided on legality and process, not urgency alone. This case does not rise or fall on the PI.

 
The bigger picture
All responsible operators support — and are desperate for — effective track-and-trace, including Veterans. What we do not support is a rollout that freezes commerce, cuts cash flow for compliant operators, and forces irreversible market changes before legality is resolved.

This only works if we stick together — across license types, across roles, and across comfort levels with litigation.

If you would like to join the case, submit an affidavit, or discuss support, please reach out at:
nytrackandtrace@gmail.com

Thank you for staying engaged and for recognizing that industry-wide problems require industry-wide unity.

— Jason Ambrosino
Veterans Holdings / Veterans Choice Creations