Supreme Court ruling allows truck driver to sue for CBD product THC failure
- Douglas Horn tested positive for THC after using a CBD product advertised as THC-free, leading to his termination.
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Horn's favor, allowing him to seek damages under RICO despite the company's claim of personal injury exclusion.
- This ruling could enable more individuals to hold companies accountable for misrepresentation in product advertising.
In a significant ruling on April 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that truck driver Douglas Horn could pursue a lawsuit against Medical Marijuana Inc. Horn claimed that a CBD product he used, marketed as THC-free, led to his termination after he tested positive for THC. The court's 5-4 decision was pivotal as it determined that damage claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could proceed, even when stemming from personal injury and not solely business harm. The ruling marked an important evolution in the interpretation of the RICO statute, traditionally used in organized crime cases. Initially, the district court sided with Medical Marijuana Inc., asserting that RICO should only be applied for business or property injuries. However, the appeals court disagreed, stating that Horn's losing his job due to the positive drug test constituted a business injury. The Supreme Court's decision showcased the legal interpretation of what constitutes harm under RICO has changed, allowing consumers greater recourse against companies that misrepresent their products. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that statutory intentions should adapt to contemporary realities, such as enabling individuals to seek redress for business losses arising from a personal injury claim. This case underscores the potential for consumer lawsuits to challenge corporate misconduct, with the court signaling that RICO's application may extend beyond its traditional boundaries, necessitating future legislative clarification. The dissent, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, argued against extending RICO provisions to personal injury claims, suggesting it diverged from the law's explicit intent. Overall, Horn's case could set a precedent for future similar claims, as individuals may now leverage RICO for damages associated with false advertising and misrepresentation by companies, especially in the increasingly popular health product sector.