Delaware HB 110 (2025): CBDT Framework Analysis

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Technical Fix

The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025

Analysis using the Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework. View validation data on Harvard Dataverse. Track current marijuana legislation at the Cannabis Bill Tracker.

Bill Summary

Bill: HB 110 State: Delaware Status: Signed into law April 25, 2025 Sponsors: Rep. Ed Osienski (D-Newark), Sen. Trey Paradee (D-Dover), Sen. Kyle Evans Gay (D-Wilmington) Effective: Immediate

What it does: HB 110 amends Delaware's cannabis statute to explicitly identify categories of individuals required to undergo fingerprint-based FBI background checks for marijuana business licensing. The bill specifies three categories:

1. Individuals working at a licensed marijuana establishment
2. Holders of a marijuana establishment license
3. Owners of 10% or greater stake in, or members of the board of directors of, a business entity that holds or applies for a marijuana establishment license

Why it was needed: In early April 2025, the FBI denied Delaware's request for a fingerprint service code—required for conducting national criminal history checks—because existing statute language was "too vague" about who required background checks. Without this service code, no conditional licenses could convert to active status, and Delaware's adult-use market could not launch.

The process Delaware submitted was identical to one approved for medical marijuana dispensaries under previous administrations. The FBI's new interpretation created an unexpected regulatory barrier two years after legalization passed.

Timeline:

• April 3, 2025: FBI denies service code request
• April 3, 2025: Rep. Osienski introduces HB 110
• April 25, 2025: Governor Matt Meyer signs HB 110
• May 6, 2025: FBI issues service code (partial approval)
• August 1, 2025: Delaware adult-use sales begin

CBDT Variable Analysis

The CBDT Framework evaluates cannabis policy through five weighted variables that predict legal market share:

Direct Variable Impact: None

HB 110 does not modify any CBDT variable directly. It does not:

• Change tax rates (Price)
• Alter licensing caps or retail density (Access)
• Modify testing requirements (Safety)
• Affect payment methods or delivery rules (Convenience)
• Create enforcement mechanisms (Enforcement)
• Address local opt-outs (Fragmentation)

Structural Impact: Market Existence

HB 110 represents a prerequisite condition rather than an optimization variable. The CBDT Framework assumes a functioning legal market exists and measures how effectively that market competes with illicit alternatives. HB 110 enabled market existence itself.

Without HB 110: Delaware legal market share = 0% With HB 110: Delaware legal market share = 45–50% (current) with potential for 60–65% (optimized)

This distinction matters for policy analysis. HB 110 is necessary but not sufficient—it removed a barrier to market launch without improving competitive positioning against illicit alternatives.

Quantified Market Share Impact

Direct CBDT Score Change: 0.00

HB 110 does not alter Delaware's competitive position against the illicit market. A Delaware consumer choosing between legal and illicit cannabis faces identical price, access, convenience, and quality tradeoffs before and after HB 110.

Indirect Impact: Market Enablement

HB 110 enabled approximately $7.3 million in August 2025 sales and $93,750 in opening weekend tax revenue by allowing market launch to proceed.

Without HB 110, Delaware would have:

• Zero legal adult-use sales
• Zero adult-use tax revenue
• Continued 100% illicit market share
• Extended delay beyond the already 28-month post-legalization wait

The bill's value is binary (market exists vs. doesn't exist) rather than marginal (market captures X% vs. Y%).

Framework Limitations Illustrated

HB 110 exposes an important boundary condition in CBDT analysis: the framework measures optimization within functioning markets, not market existence itself.

Consider the analogy: CBDT is like measuring a car's fuel efficiency. HB 110 is like having a key that starts the ignition. You can't measure miles-per-gallon on a car that won't start, but having a key doesn't tell you anything about the car's actual efficiency once running.

Delaware's CBDT profile remains unchanged:

• Current state: 45–50% legal share (poor optimization)
• Optimized state: 60–65% legal share (with tax reduction, retail expansion, federal reform)
• HB 110 contribution: Enabled measurement to occur

Policy analysts should categorize cannabis legislation into:

1. Existence conditions — Prerequisites for any legal market (HB 110)
2. Optimization variables — Factors affecting legal vs. illicit competition (tax rates, retail density, enforcement)

HB 110 falls entirely in category one.

Policy Implications

What HB 110 Gets Right

Speed: From FBI denial (April 3) to Governor's signature (April 25) took 22 days. Delaware's legislature demonstrated it can move quickly when market launch depends on it.

Bipartisan cooperation: Governor Meyer (D) and legislative leadership prioritized market launch over procedural delays.

Federal engagement: Meyer explicitly called out FBI bureaucracy in his State of the State address, signaling willingness to pressure federal agencies when they obstruct state cannabis programs.

What HB 110 Doesn't Address

Retail density: Delaware launched with 14 locations for 1.05 million residents—the lowest density of any operational adult-use state. HB 110 enables licensing but doesn't accelerate it.

Tax competitiveness: Delaware's 15% rate remains the highest in the Mid-Atlantic. HB 110 doesn't touch revenue policy.

Border competition: Maryland (9% tax), New Jersey (13% effective), and future Pennsylvania legalization threaten Delaware's market share. HB 110 doesn't create competitive advantages.

Remaining technical issue: The FBI noted Delaware's use of "agent" in statute remains "overly broad." The Office of the Marijuana Commissioner indicated additional technical corrections may be needed. Delaware should proactively address this before it becomes another barrier.

Recommendations

For Delaware Legislature:

1. Monitor FBI compliance concerns regarding "agent" terminology
2. Prepare technical fix legislation for 2026 session if needed
3. Focus optimization efforts on variables HB 110 doesn't address: tax reduction, retail acceleration, local preemption

For Other States:

1. Review background check statutory language before FBI submission
2. Explicitly enumerate categories requiring checks rather than using broad terms
3. Build relationships with FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division before applications
4. Maintain legislative capacity for rapid technical fixes

Conclusion

HB 110 is administratively essential but competitively neutral. It removed an unexpected federal barrier that threatened indefinite market delay, enabling Delaware's August 1, 2025 launch. However, it provides zero competitive advantage against illicit market alternatives.

Delaware's path to the 60–65% optimized market share requires substantive policy changes:

• Tax reduction from 15% toward 9–10%
• Retail license activation (30 awarded, 0 operational)
• Statewide delivery authorization
• Local opt-out preemption
• Federal 280E elimination and SAFE Banking passage

HB 110 turned the key. Delaware still needs to drive somewhere.

Sources

• Governor Meyer Signs HB110 into Law — Delaware.gov, April 25, 2025
• Rep. Osienski Bill Would Add Clarity to Background Check Requirements — Delaware House Democrats, April 3, 2025
• Delaware Reports Strong Start to Recreational Marijuana Sales — Delaware.gov, August 6, 2025

For methodology details, see How the Black Market Death Equation Predicts Cannabis Success. For state-specific analysis, see Delaware Cannabis Market Analysis.