On April 2, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow 5-4 decision in favor of a truck driver seeking triple damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The case stems from a CBD RICO ruling that could have broad implications for how the law is applied to misleading product claims.
Douglas Horn, the trucker at the center of the case, says he was wrongfully fired after using a CBD product advertised as THC-free. Horn had been using the product to treat chronic back and shoulder pain from a previous accident. Although CBD is a legal compound derived from hemp, it must contain less than 0.3% THC to meet federal standards. Horn claims he specifically chose the product because of its THC-free label, but he later failed a routine drug test and was terminated.
After his dismissal, lab tests reportedly confirmed the product did contain THC. Horn then filed a lawsuit against Medical Marijuana Inc., a California-based company, alleging that the misleading label cost him his job and ruined his career. He argued that his financial losses constituted a “business injury,” making him eligible for treble damages under the RICO Act, which is typically used to combat organized crime but can also apply to fraud cases.
The company disputed Horn’s version of events and argued that he could not claim triple damages under RICO because his injury was personal, not business-related.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said Horn presented the stronger legal case. She clarified that RICO allows claims for business or property losses—even if they stem from a personal injury event. “A plaintiff can seek damages for business or property loss regardless of whether the loss resulted from a personal injury,” she wrote.
Her opinion was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and the court’s three liberal justices, forming a rare ideological coalition. However, the ruling does not determine whether Horn will ultimately win his lawsuit—it only allows him to pursue it.
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that RICO does not permit personal-injury-based claims and that the case should have been dismissed.
The CBD RICO ruling sets a potential precedent, allowing individuals harmed by misleading product claims to seek broader damages under federal law.
