| Audience | Patients, clinicians, caregivers, public-health professionals, regulators, and consumers evaluating online cannabis claims |
| Primary Topic | online cannabis marketing, health claims, audience targeting, price promotions, and warning practices across five U.S. cities |
| Source | Read the full source |
Online Cannabis Marketing Expanded Across Five U.S. Cities
A new surveillance study found that online cannabis retailers in five U.S. cities commonly promoted health benefits, price specials, and membership programs in 2025. Warning practices varied, and marketing increasingly featured veterans, seniors, LGBTQ+ people, and racial or ethnic minority groups compared with 2022.
| Study Type | Website surveillance study with cross-city and 2022-to-2025 comparisons |
| Cities | Denver, Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles |
| 2025 Sample | 171 cannabis retailer websites |
| Longitudinal Comparison | 130 websites assessed in both 2022 and 2025 |
| Age Verification | 83.6 percent of websites verified age in 2025 |
| Online Sales | 96.5 percent offered online sales in 2025 |
| Health-Benefit Promotion | Sleep 58.5 percent; pain 48.5 percent |
| Frequently Targeted Groups | Veterans or military 40.9 percent; seniors 29.2 percent; racial or ethnic minority groups 24.0 percent |
| Price Promotion | Daily, weekly, or monthly specials 78.9 percent; membership or loyalty programs 75.4 percent |
| Health or Safety Warnings | 73.7 percent overall, ranging from 57.6 percent in Portland to 96.9 percent in Las Vegas |
| Regulation-Related Warnings | 58.5 percent overall, ranging from 41.9 percent in Los Angeles to 71.9 percent in Seattle |
| Publication | September 5, 2026 |
| PMID / DOI | 42699979 / 10.1177/29767342261472242 |
In 2025, 58.5 percent of the assessed websites promoted sleep benefits and 48.5 percent promoted pain benefits. The abstract reports that these claims appeared most often among retailers in Denver, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles.
Those percentages document marketing content. They do not establish that the promoted products improved sleep or pain, identify which products or doses were featured, or show whether the claims matched clinical evidence.
The 2025 websites targeted veterans or military audiences on 40.9 percent of sites, seniors on 29.2 percent, women on 25.7 percent, racial or ethnic minority groups on 24.0 percent, LGBTQ+ people on 13.5 percent, and young adults on 13.5 percent. Underage audiences appeared on 7.6 percent.
Compared with 2022, the study reports increases in targeting veterans, seniors, LGBTQ+ people, and racial or ethnic minority groups. These observations describe website content and should not be read as evidence about how any group responded.
Most websites verified age at entry, and 96.5 percent offered online sales. Price specials appeared on 78.9 percent of sites, while 75.4 percent offered membership or loyalty programs.
The combination matters because health-oriented language can sit beside immediate purchasing and repeated promotional incentives. The study did not measure purchases, consumption, or health outcomes, so it cannot determine how these features changed behavior.
Health or safety warnings appeared on 73.7 percent of websites overall, but city estimates ranged from 57.6 percent in Portland to 96.9 percent in Las Vegas. Regulation-related warnings appeared on 58.5 percent overall, ranging from 41.9 percent in Los Angeles to 71.9 percent in Seattle.
The abstract reports common warnings about adult-only access, keeping products from children, purchase limits, and public use. It does not provide enough detail to judge every site’s legal compliance or the clarity and prominence of each warning.
Cannabis retail websites function as both storefronts and health-information sources. That dual role can blur the distinction between a product description, a commercial claim, and evidence that would support a clinical recommendation.
For clinicians, the practical response is not to memorize every retailer’s website. It is to ask what claims a patient encountered, which product was promoted, what outcome the patient expects, and what evidence or safety information is actually available.
I read this study as a health-literacy warning. When sleep and pain claims appear next to discounts and one-click purchasing, patients may reasonably interpret commercial language as medical guidance even when the website does not provide treatment-level evidence.
The best clinical counterweight is specificity. Ask about the exact product, cannabinoid content, route, dose, timing, goals, medications, prior response, and unwanted effects. Marketing categories such as wellness, sleep, or pain are not substitutes for an individualized treatment plan.
How to Interpret This Online Cannabis Marketing, Health Claims, Audience Targeting, Price Promotions, And Warning Practices Across Five U.S. Cities Evidence Without Overstating It
A useful evidence report should let the signal breathe without inflating it.
The right question is not whether the paper is positive or negative, but what kind of decision it can responsibly support.
A Four-Step Reading Frame
Evidence type
Start by identifying whether the paper is a randomized trial, review, meta-analysis, observational study, or protocol.
Population
Ask whether the studied population matches the patient or clinical scenario involving consumer safety and evidence-based cannabis counseling.
Outcome meaning
Look at what actually changed, how it was measured, and whether the change would matter in daily life.
Safety and uncertainty
Read limitations and adverse effects as part of the result, not as a footnote.
Online Cannabis Marketing Through Eight Public Health Lenses
How patients, clinicians, researchers, and regulators can read the five-city findings
A Retail Claim Is Not a Treatment Plan
Patients may encounter claims about sleep or pain while browsing a site that also offers immediate purchasing and discounts. The study found that both types of health-benefit promotion were common, but it did not test whether any product improved those symptoms.
Before buying, identify the exact product, cannabinoid amounts, route, serving size, intended goal, and warning information. A clinician can help compare those details with medications, diagnoses, prior experience, and safety concerns. The study cannot predict whether a website claim is appropriate for one person.
Ask What the Patient Saw Online
A patient may arrive with language borrowed from a retailer, such as sleep support, pain relief, or veteran wellness. The study shows that these messages are common enough to deserve direct, nonjudgmental questions during medication and cannabis review.
Clinicians can ask which site, product, claim, dose, and route shaped the patient’s expectations. The abstract does not evaluate claim accuracy product by product, so the goal is not to assume deception. It is to clarify what evidence supports the expected benefit and what safety issues remain.
Website Surveillance Describes Content
The investigators assessed 171 retailer websites in five cities during 2025 and compared 130 websites across 2022 and 2025. This design can estimate how often selected marketing and warning features appeared within the sampled sites.
It cannot establish why a feature appeared, whether visitors noticed it, or whether it changed purchasing, use, or health outcomes. The full article was not accessible for this review, so unreported coding, sampling, and reliability details are not inferred. Interpretation remains limited to the abstract’s reported measures.
Audience Targeting Deserves Careful Attention
The study reports marketing directed toward veterans, seniors, women, racial or ethnic minority groups, LGBTQ+ people, young adults, and underage audiences. Several categories appeared more often in 2025 than in the 2022 comparison.
Targeting does not prove exploitation, benefit, or harm for any group. It does show that identity and life stage are part of the retail message. Researchers and regulators need outcome data before concluding how these practices affect access, trust, purchasing, or disparities across communities.
Warnings Were Common but Uneven
Nearly three quarters of websites displayed health or safety warnings in 2025, while 58.5 percent displayed regulation-related warnings. The ranges across cities were wide, especially for regulation-related content and overall health or safety messaging.
A warning’s presence does not establish that readers noticed or understood it, and the abstract does not report every detail about placement or prominence. Patients should still look for adult-only restrictions, child-safety language, purchase limits, impairment precautions, and product-specific labeling before use.
Discounts Can Shape the Information Environment
Daily, weekly, or monthly specials appeared on 78.9 percent of websites, and membership or loyalty programs appeared on 75.4 percent. These promotional tools were part of the same online environment as health-benefit claims and audience targeting.
The study did not measure whether discounts increased purchases or consumption, so a behavioral effect should not be assumed. Still, clinicians can recognize that repeated incentives may influence product choice and quantity. Counseling is more useful when it addresses the actual retail context patients navigate.
City Differences Suggest Implementation Matters
The study compared retailers in Denver, Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles, cities operating under different cannabis regulations. Reported warning practices and some promotional features varied across those settings.
Cross-city variation does not by itself prove that one regulation caused a difference. Enforcement, market structure, retailer mix, and other local factors may also matter, but the accessible abstract does not resolve them. Policy conclusions should therefore focus on continued surveillance and testable compliance standards.
Connect Marketing Exposure to Outcomes
The next evidence step is to examine whether exposure to particular claims, audience cues, warnings, or incentives changes understanding, purchasing, product selection, frequency of use, or health behavior. Those outcomes were not measured in this website surveillance study.
Future work can also test warning visibility, comprehension, and accessibility, and can compare marketing claims with product-level evidence. Longitudinal and experimental designs would better clarify effects than content counts alone. The current study provides a map of what deserves closer study.
Join the Conversation
Have a question about how this applies to your situation? Ask Dr. Caplan
Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? Join the forum discussion
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the online cannabis marketing study examine?
It assessed cannabis retailer websites in Denver, Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles for age verification, online sales, products, marketing, audience targeting, promotions, and warnings.
How many websites were included?
The 2025 analysis included 171 retailer websites, and 130 websites were included in the 2022-to-2025 comparison.
How common were online sales?
In 2025, 96.5 percent of the assessed websites offered online sales.
How common were sleep and pain claims?
The study reported sleep-benefit promotion on 58.5 percent of websites and pain-benefit promotion on 48.5 percent.
Which groups appeared in targeted marketing?
The abstract reports targeting of veterans or military audiences, seniors, women, racial or ethnic minority groups, LGBTQ+ people, young adults, and underage audiences.
How common were price promotions?
Daily, weekly, or monthly specials appeared on 78.9 percent of websites, and membership or loyalty programs appeared on 75.4 percent.
Did most websites display health or safety warnings?
Yes. The study reported health or safety warnings on 73.7 percent of websites overall, with substantial variation across cities.
Does the study prove that online marketing changes cannabis use?
No. It measured website content, not whether visitors noticed the content, purchased products, changed cannabis use, or experienced health outcomes.
Do health-benefit claims prove that a cannabis product works?
No. A retail claim is not clinical evidence for the effectiveness, dose, or safety of a specific product for a specific patient.
Was the full article available for this review?
No. The peer-reviewed abstract and identifier record were reviewed, so this report omits unreported methods, coding details, mechanisms, and outcomes.
