COA Red Flags: How to Verify Quality in Cannabinoid Lab Results (And Why It Matters to Your Brand)

Quick Answer: Fraudulent or substandard Certificates of Analysis (COAs) represent one of the highest-risk failure points in cannabinoid supply chains. Between 2020 and 2024, multiple state-licensed testing laboratories lost their certifications for falsifying THC potency results, failing to detect pesticides at levels 600 times the legal limit, and manipulating safety data. 

Brands relying on compromised COAs face regulatory penalties, product recalls, and permanent damage to retailer relationships. Proper COA verification requires checking ISO 17025 accreditation status, cross-referencing batch numbers with laboratory databases, requesting multi-batch consistency data, and confirming that safety panels include pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, mycotoxins, and residual solvents.

Key Takeaways

• Between 2020 and 2024, multiple state-licensed cannabis testing labs lost certifications for falsifying potency data and missing pesticide contamination hundreds of times above legal limits.

• A Certificate of Analysis (COA) confirms cannabinoid potency, purity, and contaminant safety; reliable labs use high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and disclose detection limits.

• Authentic COAs include ISO 17025 accreditation details, batch-specific identifiers, and full safety panels covering pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, mycotoxins, and residual solvents.

• Common COA red flags include missing lab credentials, repeated identical results, mismatched batch numbers, incomplete safety testing, or edited and photocopied documents.

• Inaccurate or fraudulent COAs expose brands to recalls, fines, lost retail partnerships, and inconsistent product performance that erodes consumer trust and profitability.

• Proper verification includes contacting the testing lab directly, scanning QR codes for validation, confirming accreditation status, and reviewing multiple consecutive batch results.

• Work with Arvida Labs for verified, ISO-accredited cannabinoid testing and full-panel COAs that ensure transparency, compliance, and confidence across every stage of your supply chain.

Why COA Quality Determines Your Brand's Long-Term Viability

In July 2024, California regulators canceled the license of a Northridge-based testing laboratory after a state investigation found the lab had falsified results on at least 20 occasions. The violations included reporting "non-detected" for the pesticide chlorfenapyr when subsequent state testing revealed concentrations nearly 600 times the legal limit. The contaminated products had already reached retail shelves. Multiple recalls followed.

This wasn't an isolated incident. Washington state revoked Praxis Laboratory's certification in 2020 after discovering the lab had falsified THC potency data for more than 1,200 samples. Nevada banned Cannex Nevada for 10 years after potency inflation violations. New York laboratory executives documented dozens of impossible cannabinoid profiles, including vape cartridges with "certified" total cannabinoids exceeding 100%.

For cannabinoid manufacturers and brand developers, COA integrity isn't a compliance formality. It's the documentation that validates every claim you make about purity, potency, and safety. When that documentation fails, so does everything downstream: formulation accuracy, dosing consistency, regulatory approval, and customer trust. Brands that can't verify their COAs lose access to major retail channels, face expensive recalls, and struggle to scale beyond early-stage distribution.

What Does a Certificate of Analysis Actually Measure?

A Certificate of Analysis serves as documented proof that a cannabinoid batch meets defined quality and safety specifications. It's issued by an independent testing laboratory after analyzing samples for potency, purity, and the presence of harmful contaminants. 

The COA translates laboratory data into actionable information that brand developers, purchasing managers, and regulatory bodies use to make decisions about product safety and market eligibility.

Potency Testing Standards

Cannabinoid potency testing identifies and quantifies the concentration of specific compounds in a sample. Labs normally test for major cannabinoids (THC, CBD, CBG, CBN) and some lesser-known compounds (THCv, THCp, Delta-8, HHC), depending on the product type and intended market. Results appear as milligrams per gram (mg/g) or as percentages.

The testing method matters here. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is the industry standard for cannabinoid quantification because it measures cannabinoids without converting their acidic precursors (THCa, CBDa) into their decarboxylated forms. Gas chromatography (GC) applies heat during analysis, which artificially converts THCa to THC and skews results. Any COA should clearly state which methodology was used.

Potency results should include limit of quantification (LOQ) values, which is the lowest concentration a lab can reliably measure. Without LOQ data, you can't assess whether "non-detected" means the compound is truly absent or simply below the lab's detection threshold. That distinction becomes critical when verifying compliance with 0.3% Delta-9 THC limits or when formulating precise cannabinoid ratios.

Safety and Contaminant Panels

Safety testing screens for contaminants that pose health risks: pesticides, heavy metals (lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium), microbials (E. coli, Salmonella, mold), mycotoxins, and residual solvents from extraction processes. Each category requires different testing methods and detection limits based on state regulations and industry standards.

A complete safety panel includes pass/fail determinations for each contaminant category. "Non-detected" (ND) or results below action limits indicate passing status. Any detected contaminant above regulatory thresholds should trigger an automatic failure. 

Labs that consistently report clean results across all samples without occasional failures may warrant additional scrutiny. Real-world testing may often include batches with trace contaminants that fall within acceptable ranges.

Documentation Requirements That Separate Real Labs from Resellers

Legitimate testing laboratories provide documentation: ISO 17025 accreditation certificate numbers, DEA registration for controlled substance testing, validated testing methods with references to standard protocols, calibration records demonstrating measurement accuracy, and chain of custody information tracking samples from collection through analysis.

Brokers and resellers often provide COAs from other sources without this supporting documentation. They may white out client names, alter batch numbers, or reuse old test results for new inventory. Real labs maintain laboratory information management systems (LIMS) that allow verification of results through batch-specific QR codes or online portals. If a supplier can't provide direct laboratory contact information or won't authorize you to verify results independently, that's your first warning sign.

Six Critical Red Flags in Cannabinoid COAs

Identifying problematic COAs requires knowing what authentic documentation looks like and where fraudulent suppliers typically cut corners. These red flags appear consistently in manipulated or substandard test results.

Missing or Non-Accredited Laboratory Information

Every COA should prominently display the testing laboratory's name, physical address, accreditation certificate number, and contact information. ISO 17025 accreditation, the international standard for testing and calibration laboratories, indicates that a lab has demonstrated technical competence, validated testing methods, and proper quality management systems.

Labs operating without ISO 17025 accreditation or state-specific licensing may lack the expertise, equipment, or quality controls necessary for accurate testing. Some states require additional certifications: California mandates ISO 17025 accreditation for all licensed cannabis testing laboratories, while Florida requires labs to be designated by the Department of Agriculture and registered with the DEA.

If a COA lists only a lab name without verifiable credentials, or if the laboratory information has been obscured or removed, you're likely looking at a document that's been altered or sourced from a broker rather than directly from the testing facility.

This is what laboratory information looks like on an Arvida Labs COA.

Suspiciously Perfect Cannabinoid Profiles

Natural cannabinoid production doesn't yield perfectly round numbers or conveniently consistent ratios across multiple batches. A Delta-8 distillate that tests at exactly 90.0% for three consecutive batches, or a CBD isolate that consistently hits 99.9% purity, suggests either exceptional manufacturing control or manipulated test results.

Real testing data includes decimal precision that reflects actual measurement: 89.73%, 91.28%, 88.94%. Labs report what their instruments detect, not what suppliers want to claim. Batch-to-batch variation of 2-5% is normal for distillates and isolates due to slight differences in starting material, processing conditions, and environmental factors.

Multiple batches with identical or suspiciously similar cannabinoid profiles indicate potential result manipulation. This pattern appeared frequently in state investigations that uncovered lab fraud. Laboratories would retest samples until they achieved the desired THC percentages, then report only the highest results.

Realistic percentages from one of our Delta-8 batch tests look something like this:

Outdated Test Dates or Mismatched Batch Numbers

COAs should match the specific batch you're purchasing, with testing dates that reflect recent production. Cannabinoids degrade over time, particularly when exposed to heat, light, and oxygen. A COA dated 18 months ago doesn't accurately represent current product composition, even if the batch number appears to match.

Batch number mismatches represent a more serious problem. If the batch ID on your product doesn't match the batch ID on the COA, you have no way to verify that the test results correspond to what you're actually buying. Unethical suppliers reuse COAs from previous batches, hoping buyers won't notice the discrepancy. Others white out or digitally alter batch numbers to make old test results appear current.

Cross-reference every detail here. Batch number, test date, product description, and client name. Any inconsistency warrants immediate clarification before committing to a purchase.

Incomplete Contaminant Testing Panels

A COA that only reports cannabinoid potency without safety testing is essentially worthless for quality verification. Thorough testing requires multiple panels: pesticides (typically 60+ compounds), heavy metals (at minimum: lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium), microbials (including total yeast and mold, E. coli, Salmonella), mycotoxins (aflatoxins, ochratoxin), and residual solvents (ethanol, butane, propane, hexane, and others depending on extraction method).

Some suppliers provide "potency-only" COAs to avoid the cost and risk of full-panel testing. Others cherry-pick which safety tests to run based on expected results. For example, they might only test for contaminants they're confident will pass while avoiding panels that might reveal problems.

State regulations define minimum testing requirements, but serious B2B suppliers exceed these minimums as standard practice. Arvida Labs provides full-panel testing documentation for every batch, not because regulations demand it, but because downstream brand partners need detailed safety data to satisfy their own compliance requirements and retailer expectations. Here’s what contaminant testing looks like on one of our COAs.

Results That Don't Match Standard Cannabinoid Ratios

Certain cannabinoid relationships follow predictable patterns based on production methods. Hemp-derived CBD isolate should show minimal amounts of other cannabinoids, normally less than 1% combined. If a CBD isolate COA reports 5% CBG or 3% CBN, either the isolation process failed or the results don't match the product.

Similarly, isomerized cannabinoids like Delta-8 THC converted from CBD should show characteristic byproduct signatures. The isomerization process creates Delta-8, Delta-9, Delta-10, and other isomers in predictable ratios. A Delta-8 distillate showing 95% Delta-8 with absolutely no other THC isomers suggests either an extraordinarily refined product (rare and expensive) or manipulated test results.

Minor cannabinoid presence also matters. Raw cannabis and hemp contain small amounts of CBG, CBC, and other compounds even after processing. A distillate showing only one cannabinoid at high purity with literally nothing else detected often indicates selective reporting rather than a proper analysis.

For example, this test result from one of our CBG Isolate batches shows that the product contains very small amounts of CBD and CBDv as well.

Altered or Photocopied Documents

Authentic COAs are generated digitally and provided as original PDFs with embedded metadata, digital signatures, or verification QR codes. Photocopied documents, scanned images, or PDFs that appear to have been edited suggest tampering.

Legitimate COAs include QR codes or website verification links that connect directly to the laboratory's database. Scanning the code should direct you to a laboratory information management system (LIMS) where you can independently verify the results. If the QR code is missing, doesn't work, or leads to a generic website rather than a secure database, treat the COA as suspect until verified through direct laboratory contact.

All the COAs from Arvida Labs contain QR codes that, when scanned, take you directly to the laboratory’s website and its listing of the relevant batch test result.

The Real Cost of Bad COAs to Your Brand

The consequences of relying on fraudulent or inadequate COAs extend far beyond the immediate purchase. Brands built on compromised testing data face cascading failures that can destroy years of market development work.

Regulatory Risk and Market Access

State cannabis and hemp regulators increasingly conduct random testing of products pulled from retail shelves. When these compliance checks reveal contamination levels or potency variances that contradict a brand's original COA, regulators place the brand in an ‘out of compliance’ state, initiate product recalls, and investigate the entire supply chain.

The California incidents from 2024 resulted in multiple recalls spanning several months. Brands that used the compromised lab, even unknowingly, faced mandatory product pulls, destruction of inventory, and regulatory scrutiny of their supplier vetting processes. Some lost their licenses or faced suspension while investigations proceeded.

Beyond recalls, brands discovered that the retail accounts they thought were stable disappeared overnight. Major dispensaries and hemp retailers maintain strict supplier standards precisely to avoid these situations. Once a brand gets flagged for a testing-related recall, rebuilding trust with top-tier retail partners can take 18-24 months even after correcting the underlying problem.

Product Consistency Failures

Inaccurate COAs create formulation problems that manifest as inconsistent product performance. A brand formulating sleep gummies using what they believe is 95% CBN isolate might actually be working with 78% CBN plus unknown cannabinoids and impurities. The dosing calculations are wrong from the start.

When products don't perform as expected, customers report unpredictable effects, batches vary in potency, or promised benefits don't materialize. The brand's reputation suffers even though the problem originated with supplier documentation. Returns increase, negative reviews accumulate, and customer acquisition costs rise as word-of-mouth referrals decline.

Reformulation costs compound the problem. Once a brand realizes their supplier's COAs were inaccurate, they face the expensive process of retesting inventory, adjusting formulations, updating labels, and potentially scrapping finished goods that no longer meet specifications.

Retailer Trust and Reorder Rates

Retail buyers evaluate suppliers based on reliability over time. Consistent product performance, accurate documentation, and zero surprises drive long-term partnerships. A single incident involving a contaminated product or dramatically off-spec potency can end a retail relationship permanently.

Purchasing managers at multi-location retailers and dispensary chains maintain informal networks where they share information about problematic brands and suppliers. Once your brand gets identified as unreliable, even if the root cause was a third-party lab you trusted, that reputation spreads quickly through buyer communities.

Reorder rates drop immediately when retailers lose confidence in your documentation. Even established brands with strong sales history find themselves suddenly unable to secure purchase orders for subsequent production runs. Buyers move to competitors who can demonstrate proper COA verification processes and testing partnerships with accredited laboratories.

How to Verify a COA Before Committing to a Supplier

Proper verification takes time but prevents expensive mistakes. These steps provide reasonable assurance that COAs accurately represent product quality.

• Contact the Testing Laboratory Directly: Don't rely solely on supplier-provided documentation. Contact the laboratory listed on the COA and request verification. Most labs will confirm (yes/no) whether they tested a specific batch without releasing confidential client information.

• Cross-Reference Batch Numbers and QR Codes: Every element on a COA should align: batch numbers, test dates, product descriptions, and client names. Scan any QR codes and verify they connect to a legitimate laboratory database rather than a generic webpage or broken link.

• Request Multiple Batch COAs for Consistency: Single-batch COAs show what a supplier can produce once. Multiple consecutive batch COAs reveal whether they maintain consistent quality over time. Request test results for the three most recent production batches of any product you're considering.

• Verify ISO 17025 Accreditation Status: Don't take accreditation claims at face value. Visit the accreditation body's public database (A2LA, ANAB, PJLA, or IAS) and confirm the laboratory's status. Check that their accreditation is current and covers the specific test types relevant to your products.

Closing Thoughts — What Leading Cannabinoid Partners Do Differently

The gap between commodity suppliers and professional manufacturing partners becomes obvious when you examine their approach to COA documentation and quality verification. 

Leading manufacturers maintain direct relationships with ISO 17025 accredited laboratories rather than brokering tests through intermediaries. They provide unaltered COAs with full laboratory credentials and contact information, facilitating independent verification. They test every batch comprehensively, full cannabinoid profiles plus complete safety panels, rather than cherry-picking which tests to run. Most importantly, they structure their operations around the understanding that their clients need reliable documentation to succeed.

Arvida Labs builds every partnership on this foundation of transparent, verifiable testing. We don't treat COAs as compliance obstacles. They're the documentation that allows your brand to scale with confidence. Every batch of bulk cannabinoid distillate and isolate we produce receives comprehensive testing through accredited laboratories. Full cannabinoid profiles using HPLC methodology. Complete safety panels covering pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, mycotoxins, and residual solvents. Unaltered COAs with direct laboratory contact information for independent verification.

When you're sourcing our product for product development, you need more than test results. You need documentation that satisfies your downstream partners. Retailers who demand batch traceability. Quality assurance teams that verify supplier credentials. Regulatory bodies that audit compliance documentation. Arvida's COAs support all of these requirements because we maintain the testing standards that serious brand development demands.

Ready to work with a cannabinoid manufacturer that prioritizes proper testing and transparent documentation? Contact Arvida Labs to learn more today.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the Difference Between ISO 17025 Accreditation and State Licensing for Cannabis Labs?

ISO 17025 is an international standard demonstrating validated testing methods, qualified personnel, and proper quality management systems, administered by bodies like A2LA or ANAB. State licensing grants legal permission to operate within that state's framework. Some states mandate ISO 17025 as a licensing condition; others don't. Verify both credentials.

How Recent Should a COA Be to Remain Valid?

For bulk distillates and isolates stored properly, test results remain representative for 6-12 months. Finished goods may degrade faster due to additional ingredients. Best practice: request COAs dated within 90 days of production for new supplier relationships, and require fresh testing for long-stored inventory.

Can a Supplier Use the Same COA for Multiple Product Batches?

No. Each production batch requires its own COA because cannabinoid content varies batch-to-batch. Using one COA for multiple batches eliminates traceability and makes identifying problem sources impossible. This practice is common among brokers but unacceptable for serious B2B partnerships. One batch number equals one COA.

What Should I Do if I Suspect a COA Has Been Altered?

Contact the testing laboratory directly using independently found contact information. Provide the sample ID, batch number, and test date for verification. If the lab can't verify or indicates discrepancies, document everything and cease purchasing immediately. Consider reporting fraudulent documentation to state regulatory agencies.

Are There Legal Consequences for Brands That Rely on Fraudulent COAs?

Yes. Regulatory agencies hold brands accountable for mislabeled or contaminated products even without knowing falsification. Consequences include mandatory recalls, license suspension, financial penalties, and civil liability. The legal concept of "reasonable diligence" applies—brands must verify supplier documentation rather than accepting COAs at face value.

How Can I Tell if THC Levels Have Been Artificially Inflated?

Inflated THC reporting shows patterns: consistently round numbers across batches, percentages significantly exceeding industry averages, identical values with zero variation, and Total THC calculations misaligned with reported cannabinoid values. If results seem too good, request laboratory verification and consider independent analysis.

What's the Role of Third-Party Verification in COA Accuracy?

Third-party verification means testing by independent laboratories with no supplier financial relationship beyond testing. This prevents conflicts of interest from lab shopping. Some brands implement dual-testing protocols for comparison. Significant discrepancies (over 10-15% potency variance or missed safety failures) indicate methodology or integrity problems.

Sources for this Article

• MJBizDaily: "California revokes marijuana testing lab license over fake results" - mjbizdaily.com/california-regulators-revoke-marijuana-testing-lab-license-for-faking-results/

• Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board: "Cannabis testing lab Praxis shut down for falsifying test results" - lcb.wa.gov/pressreleases/praxis-shut-down-for-falsifying-results

• MJBizDaily: "State cannabis regulators still one step behind questionable THC lab data" - mjbizdaily.com/state-cannabis-regulators-still-one-step-behind-questionable-thc-lab-data/

• MJBizDaily: "Marijuana testing lab fraud claims hit New York's adult-use market" - mjbizdaily.com/claims-of-marijuana-testing-lab-fraud-hit-new-york-adult-use-market/

• Louisiana Department of Health: "Requirements for Consumable Hemp Product" - ldh.la.gov/page/4860

• FiveThirtyEight: "America's Pot Labs Have A THC Problem" - fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-pot-labs-have-a-thc-problem/

• Cannabis Risk Manager: "California Shuts Down Cannabis Testing Lab Over Faked Results and Equipment Tampering" - cannabisriskmanager.com/newpost/california-shuts-down-cannabis-lab-over-fake-test-results/