Public Notice Regarding OMMA Advisory on Ruby Mae’s LLC
On October 13, 2025, the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA) issued an embargo relating to products produced by Ruby Mae’s LLC (License No. PAAA-EKRQ-5DLS). On October 23, 2025, OMMA distributed an email through its voluntary public subscription service stating that a recall had been issued.
The central question is whether OMMA has satisfied the procedural requirements necessary to effectuate a rule-based recall under OAC 442:10-8-1(g).
The Regulatory Framework
OAC 442:10-8-1(g) governs embargoes and recalls. OMMA’s rule provides that:
“The Authority may also issue a public recall notice, at any time, if it determines it is necessary to protect the public's health, safety and welfare.” OAC 442:10-8-1(g)(2)(C)(vi)
The operative phrase — “may also issue” — indicates that a public recall notice is supplemental. It does not replace the procedural steps required to implement a formal recall under the rule.
Under subsection (g)(2)(C), a recall requires:
Identification of the specific medical marijuana or medical marijuana products subject to recall;
Creation of a distribution list of all commercial licensees who received the product;
Notice to all affected licensees and consumers once identified;
Mandatory assistance from every licensee who possesses or previously possessed the product;
Compliance under threat of suspension, revocation, and monetary penalties.
These provisions contemplate direct, actual notice to affected licensees — particularly where enforcement consequences are implicated.
Due Process Considerations
Subsection (g)(2)(C)(vi) expressly authorizes revocation, suspension, and fines for failure to comply with recall obligations.
Where professional licensure is at risk, constitutional due process protections are triggered. SeeBarry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 64 (1979) (license revocation implicates protected property interest); Price v. Reed, 1986 OK 43, ¶ 9, 725 P.2d 1254, 1260 (recognizing licenses as protectable property interests under Oklahoma law).
Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
A commercial medical marijuana license is a protected property interest. When the State threatens suspension or revocation, procedural due process applies. Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform affected parties of:
The specific product recalled;
The scope of the recall;
The licensee’s legal obligations.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has consistently held that administrative actions affecting a person’s ability to earn a livelihood must comply with constitutional standards. SeeJohnson v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists, 1996 OK 41, ¶ 14, 913 P.2d 1339, 1345.
A voluntary, subscription-based email sent to members of the public does not constitute formal administrative service or individualized regulatory notice.
If dispensaries or other commercial licensees are expected to comply with recall obligations under threat of discipline, then individualized, direct notice is not discretionary — it is constitutionally required.
Administrative Procedure Act Constraints
OMMA’s actions must comply with the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (the “APA”).
The APA expressly prohibits an agency from expanding or implementing regulatory obligations through informal means such as internal policy, guidance, or ad hoc communications. 75 O.S. § 302(D).
Oklahoma courts have consistently enforced this limitation, holding that agencies cannot alter or impose substantive requirements without formal rulemaking, and that unpublished or informal directives carry no legal force. See Highland Dairy Foods Co., LLC v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 2006 OK CIV APP 68, ¶ 14, 136 P.3d 1072, 1076 (holding that an agency’s attempt to change statutory requirements through internal policy without rulemaking violates the APA).
To the extent OMMA seeks to impose recall obligations—or enforce penalties or license revocation for noncompliance—based solely on a public email advisory rather than the procedures set forth in OAC 442:10-8-1(g), such action risks constituting an impermissible expansion of regulatory duties outside the rulemaking process. Under 75 O.S. § 302(E), any such informal agency action is “null, void, and unenforceable.”
Current Posture
Based on publicly available information, OMMA has issued a public advisory through its subscription email system. However, it has not publicly demonstrated that:
Specific products have been formally identified to all affected licensees;
Direct notice has been provided to each commercial licensee in the distribution chain; nor
The procedural steps outlined in OAC 442:10-8-1(g)(2) have been satisfied.
Accordingly, no legally operative recall—within the meaning of OMMA’s governing rules—has been properly established.
