A Virginia medical cannabis company has filed a sweeping lawsuit naming DoorDash Inc. among several defendants accused of selling and delivering cannabis products that exceed state THC limits.
Dalitso LLC, which operates under the brand Beyond Hello Cannabis Dispensary, filed the complaint in Henrico County Circuit Court on Oct. 24. The company alleges that DoorDash, Total Wine & More, and associated distributors conspired to sell “intoxicating cannabinoid products” disguised as legal hemp.
According to the suit, Total Wine’s Arlington store sold a four-pack of “Coastalo THC Red Cream Soda” with a combined 5.65 milligrams of total THC—above Virginia’s two-milligram limit for hemp products. The filing claims DoorDash delivered these drinks to consumers in Arlington and across Virginia, enabling unlicensed cannabis sales and giving the defendants an “unlawful economic advantage” over licensed dispensaries that follow strict packaging, testing, and age-verification rules.
Dalitso is seeking $20 million in damages, triple damages under Virginia’s business-conspiracy statute, and court orders to halt unlicensed cannabis deliveries near its dispensaries.
The lawsuit couldn’t come at a worse time for DoorDash, the popular delivery service that relies on “gig” laborers to bring food and other goods to users of its mobile app.
Last week, the publicly traded delivery app company was hit with a short report that alleged the company used workarounds and loopholes within American immigration and labor laws to hire illegal alien workers and other non-citizens who were otherwise prohibited from working legally in the U.S.
DoorDash has navigated a volatile market since its December 2020 IPO, with its share price steadily climbing to a peak of more than $280 per share on Oct. 6.
Since Culper Research’s October 23, 2025 short report—alleging widespread use of unauthorized workers and potential regulatory risks—DASH has climbed 4.8 percent (from $252.31 per share to $264.30).
The swift rebound suggests the market largely shrugged off the claims, buoyed by DoorDash’s quick rebuttal and focus on compliance.
The new lawsuit includes DoorDash merely as a delivery vector for an underlying product that violates Virginia law around cannabis products, but the threat of litigation could further spook investors.
The complaint alleges DoorDash functioned as the last link in the illegal distribution chain, bringing over-the-limit THC beverages directly to consumers. The company, the suit says, acted “in concert” with the Total Wine entities and beverage makers to compete with Virginia’s regulated medical cannabis market without licensing, oversight, or consumer protections.
DoorDash quickly rebutted the allegations made in the Culper short report, but the company has yet to respond to the legal challenge dropped Tuesday afternoon.
The Virginia case highlights how America’s patchwork of regulatory environments creates confusion, high compliance costs, and a system that effectively rewards corporate actors—as well as criminal cartels—who are willing to bend or outright break the rules. This multiplicity of competing state jurisdictions is further complicated by the so-called Hemp Loophole, a seven-year-old Farm Bill provision that had the perhaps unintended consequence of giving rise to a massive market for intoxicating hemp products, synthetic cannabis analogues, and illicitly grown cannabis that is often passed off as consumable hemp or “THCa.”
The case emerges as 41 Attorneys General have signed a letter calling on Congress to close the hemp loophole. In a letter on Friday, the AGs warned of a national gray market fueled by hemp-derived intoxicants. The bipartisan coalition, including Maine’s Aaron Frey and Virginia’s Jason S. Miyares, urged members of Congress to rewrite the federal hemp definition established by the 2018 Farm Bill.
The attorneys general said Congress “never meant to legalize these products,” citing a “grievously mistaken interpretation” that has allowed manufacturers to chemically alter hemp into potent psychoactive cannabinoids like delta-8 THC and THCP. The letter described the resulting products as “Frankenstein THC,” often packaged as candies or drinks that appeal to minors, and warned that poison control calls involving such compounds have surged sharply in several states.
As the Maine Wire has chronicled extensively, transnational criminal cartels — aka the Chinese mafia — are seizing on the current state of American cannabis regulation to reap vast profits from illicitly grown cannabis sold in states with gray or black markets, often using the Hemp Loophole as cover to sell traditional cannabis.
Cannabis grown in Maine, California, Washington State, and Oklahoma is trafficked to states where cannabis is still illegal and then sold at gas stations, head shops, and convenience stores—with market participants along the way pretending the underlying product is hemp.
The lawsuit also arrives days after the research firm Culper Research issued a short-seller report alleging that DoorDash has “quietly onboarded unauthorized and unvetted” delivery workers by accepting taxpayer identification numbers instead of Social Security numbers—a claim suggesting potential gaps in compliance and oversight.
The Virginia case connects local cannabis regulation with a broader debate about national enforcement and the accountability of tech-driven delivery networks. If courts side with Dalitso—or if Congress redefines hemp as attorneys general propose—delivery services could face new scrutiny over their role in transporting products that blur the line between hemp and marijuana.
For now, the case against DoorDash marks the first time a major U.S. delivery app has been formally accused of facilitating illegal cannabis sales, highlighting the widening collision between digital commerce, hemp regulation, and state-licensed marijuana markets.
Taken together, the short report and the lawsuit amount to an allegation that DoorDash has been using illegal aliens to delivery illegal drugs right to consumers doorstep.
DoorDash has said any illegal activity on its platform constitutes fraud and violates its policies, but they haven’t responded directly to Monday’s lawsuit.
