Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.47
(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(f)
(1) In a civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (b), (c), or (d) against an online marketplace in relation to cannabis or cannabis products, it is a complete affirmative defense if the online marketplace establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:
(2) In a civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (b), (c), or (d) against an online marketplace in relation to intoxicating hemp products, it is a complete affirmative defense if the online marketplace establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:
(A) The defendant had, at the time the allegedly harmful product was sold, in full force and effect, a policy and practice of requiring offers to sell a product containing hemp to describe the product as “THC free” or “nonintoxicating,” or to contain that statement “[Insert online marketplace name] does not permit the sale of intoxicating hemp,” where those words appear in the largest text visible to the public describing or identifying the product and are either of the following:
(3) In a civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (b), (c), or (d) against an online marketplace in relation to intoxicating hemp products, it is a complete affirmative defense if the online marketplace establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:
(4) In a civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (b), (c), or (d) against an online marketplace in relation to intoxicating hemp products, it is a complete affirmative defense if the online marketplace establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:
(B) Prior to the sale of the intoxicating hemp product alleged to have caused the injury, the defendant did either of the following:
(5)
(A) In a civil action brought pursuant to subdivisions (b), (c), or (d) against an online marketplace in relation to intoxicating hemp products, it is a complete affirmative defense if the online marketplace establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the marketplace did either of the following:
(ii) Prior to the action being filed, within 48 hours of the online marketplace knowing it was violating paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), inserted or caused to be inserted into the product description of the product that is alleged to have caused the harm disclosures that describe the product as “THC free” or “nonintoxicating,” or “[Insert marketplace name] does not permit the sale of intoxicating hemp,” where the words “THC free” or “nonintoxicating” or “[Iinsert marketplace name] does not permit the sale of intoxicating hemp,” appear in the largest text visible to the public describing or identifying the product, those words appeared on the product description without interruption until the time the action was filed, and those words are either of the following: