Who Is Cookies? A Brand File on the Iconic Cannabis Lifestyle Brand
Berner's Cookies is one of the most famous names in cannabis — a global lifestyle and licensing empire. It's also a different kind of company than the hemp brands we usually grade, and on our consumer-transparency rubric it scores low: testing lives at the dispensary level, not the brand's, and its public record is dominated by a thicket of (unproven) partner and investor disputes.
By The Kind Buds Desk · 12 min read · Updated 2026-06-28
Kind Buds Brand Transparency Score
An iconic, legitimate, globally licensed cannabis lifestyle brand — but measured on our consumer-transparency rubric it scores low: it publishes no brand-level COAs (testing is dispensary/state-level), its manufacturing is licensed out to partners, and its public record is dominated by a dense web of unproven partner/investor disputes. A rubric-limited grade, not a verdict on product quality.
An opinion grade from our transparent 6-pillar methodology, built on publicly sourced facts.
As a licensed-cannabis brand, products are state-tested via mandated track-and-trace at the dispensary level — a real floor — but there is no brand-published, consumer-accessible COA library the way hemp brands provide, so you can't verify a Cookies product's lab report from the brand.
The asset-light model is disclosed (Cookies licenses its brand and genetics to state-licensed operators who manufacture), which is honest — but it means no named owned facility and production distributed across many partners.
Genetics and breeding partners are unusually well-documented (GSC heritage; Gary Payton via Powerzzzup; Seed Junky) — a genuine strength — though cultivation is partner-run and not centrally disclosed.
Founders and top leadership are named, the licensing structure and several named investors and round figures are public — but it's 'a network of legally distinct companies,' the cap table is opaque, and its valuation is disputed in litigation.
Named leadership and a public retail footprint (70+ stores across 6 countries), but employee count, a named HQ address, and workplace ratings aren't disclosed.
A globally iconic brand (first cannabis CEO on Forbes' cover) — but an unusually dense record of unproven partner/investor disputes plus a court-driven insolvency-risk event; balanced by an arbitration Cookies won, a suit that was retracted, and the founder's denials.
Cookies is, by reputation, the biggest lifestyle brand in cannabis — co-founded by Bay Area rapper Berner (Gilbert Milam Jr.), built on genetics like Girl Scout Cookies and Gary Payton, and extended into streetwear and dozens of licensed stores around the world. It's a cultural juggernaut. It's also, importantly, a different kind of company than almost everything else in these files — a licensed-cannabis and brand-licensing operation, not a hemp e-commerce brand with a COA library. We still ran it through our six-pillar Brand Transparency Score, and it lands at an F (52/100) — a result that needs its caveats stated up front and honestly.
Two things to be clear about. First, this is a transparency-and-record score, not a judgment that Cookies' products are bad or that the brand is illegitimate — it plainly is legitimate and beloved. Second, our rubric is calibrated for consumer-facing transparency (published COAs, named labs, disclosed manufacturing), and a licensed-cannabis lifestyle brand simply doesn't operate that way — its testing happens at the dispensary level under state mandate, not on a brand website. That structural mismatch accounts for part of the grade. The rest comes from a genuinely unusual public record: a dense thicket of unproven partner and investor lawsuits. We'll handle every one of those as an allegation, include the founder's denials and the cases that went Cookies' way, and never state as fact what hasn't been proven. Here's the receipts-first reality.
The short version
- Our grade: F (52/100) — a rubric-limited transparency score, not a quality or legitimacy verdict. Cookies is an iconic, legitimate brand measured on a yardstick built for hemp e-commerce.
- Why the testing pillar scores low. As licensed cannabis, Cookies' products are state-tested at the dispensary level — but the brand publishes no consumer-accessible COA library, so you can't verify a report from Cookies itself.
- A genuine strength: genetics transparency. Its breeding lineage and partners (GSC heritage, Gary Payton via Powerzzzup, Seed Junky) are unusually well-documented.
- The record is dominated by disputes — all unproven. Multiple investors and partners have alleged self-dealing and mismanagement; we label every claim an allegation, note the founder's denials, the suit that was retracted, and an arbitration Cookies actually won.
- No confirmed Cookies hemp line. Gas-station 'Cookies' delta-8 is counterfeit/unauthorized, and generic 'cookies strain' recalls are name collisions — none of which we attribute to the company.
| What the public record shows | |
|---|---|
| Core legal entity | Cookies Creative Consulting & Promotions, LLC (+ Cookies SF, LLC) |
| Founded | 2010, San Francisco |
| Founders | Berner (Gilbert Milam Jr., CEO) & Jai (Lesjai Peronnet Chang) |
| Model | Brand + genetics licensing to state-licensed operators |
| Footprint | 70+ cannabis stores, 6 countries; ~4 apparel stores |
| Lab testing | State-mandated at dispensary level; no brand COA library |
| Flagship genetics | Gary Payton, Cereal Milk, Runtz, Minntz, Grandiflora |
| Investors (named) | Entourage Effect, Gron Ventures, Red Tech, others |
| Litigation | Multiple unproven partner/investor disputes; one arbitration Cookies won (on appeal) |
| Hemp/CBD line | None confirmed; gas-station 'Cookies' delta-8 is unauthorized |
Cookies at a glance — the verified facts
The short version
Cookies is iconic, legitimate, and — on our particular yardstick — a low scorer, for reasons that are mostly structural and partly about its record. Our rubric rewards consumer-facing transparency: published COAs, named labs, disclosed manufacturing. A licensed-cannabis lifestyle and licensing brand doesn't work that way; its testing is regulatory and dispensary-level, and its products are made by licensed partners. That mismatch is real, and we say so plainly rather than pretend a hemp ruler fits a cannabis empire perfectly.
The rest of the grade reflects an unusually thick public record of business disputes. We want to be scrupulous here: those are allegations, not findings; the founder denies them; one major case went Cookies' way and another was withdrawn. We're reporting the documented existence of the disputes and an insolvency-risk event, not endorsing anyone's claims. This is a careful, caveated F — read it as "a different kind of company that our score can't fully capture, with a noisy record," not "avoid."
Who's behind it? (Well known — with two corrections)
Cookies was founded in 2010 in San Francisco by Berner — rapper and entrepreneur Gilbert Milam Jr., the CEO and public face — and co-founder Jai, the cultivation/genetics half of the partnership. Its leadership also publicly includes president Parker Berling and CFO Ian Habernicht. The brand became a global phenomenon, and in 2022 Berner was the first cannabis executive on the cover of Forbes.
A different kind of company — and why the rubric strains
Most brands in these files are hemp e-commerce companies: they buy or make a product, ship it nationwide, and (at their best) post a COA you can pull by batch. Cookies is a licensed-cannabis brand and a brand-licensing business. It licenses its name and its genetics to state-licensed operators who cultivate, manufacture, and sell in their own regulated markets — confirmed in a licensing agreement filed with the SEC. Its products are sold only in licensed dispensaries (70+ stores across 6 countries), plus a streetwear line (Cookies SF) that's the only part legally shippable nationwide.
That model changes what "transparency" even means. Lab testing for licensed cannabis is mandated by the state and tracked through systems like METRC at the dispensary level — a real safety floor that hemp brands don't have. But there's no brand-published, consumer-accessible COA library the way a top hemp brand provides, so a shopper can't pull a "Cookies COA" from the brand itself. On our rubric — whose heaviest pillar is exactly that consumer-accessible lab transparency — a licensed-cannabis brand inevitably scores low, even though its products are regulated and tested. We flag that mismatch rather than hide it.
The record: a thicket of disputes — and how to read it
Here's the part that requires the most care, because Cookies' public record is dominated by litigation, and almost all of it is unproven. We sort it by type and disposition, and we do not state any allegation as fact:
- Investor/partner suits (ALLEGATIONS, unadjudicated). Several investor and partner groups have sued Cookies and/or its principals alleging self-dealing, kickbacks, mismanagement, and, in one genetics-partner case, mishandling of a joint venture. These are civil allegations that have not been adjudicated, and we present them as claims, not findings.
- A suit that was withdrawn. One ~$38M suit alleging forced use of affiliate suppliers was voluntarily dismissed, with the plaintiff retracting the allegations — important context that cuts in Cookies' favor.
- An arbitration Cookies WON. In a dispute with a retail licensee, an arbitrator ruled in Cookies' favor for roughly $22.7M (unpaid royalties and IP misuse). It's under appeal, and payment has been contested — but it's a case that went for the brand, not against it.
- A court-driven insolvency-risk event. A separate order over how licensing royalties are routed prompted a Cookies court filing warning of a possible "immediate insolvency event." That's a sourced, documented event (and partly the brand's own characterization), which we note as a real financial-record flag without predicting an outcome.
- A federal mislabeling class action. A federal suit names Cookies among many companies, alleging some cannabis products were mislabeled and sold as federally-legal delta-8 hemp. Allegation only, unadjudicated.
One more disambiguation, because it's easy to get wrong: there is no confirmed Cookies-operated hemp/CBD line. The "Cookies" delta-8 you might see at a gas station is counterfeit/unauthorized, and generic "cookies strain" recalls (Orange Cookies, Girl Scout Cookies) are strain-name collisions, not products of this company — we attribute none of them to Cookies.
The bottom line
In our view, Cookies is an iconic, legitimate brand that our consumer-transparency score can only partly capture — and what it does capture is mixed. The low grade is driven first by structure: a licensed-cannabis lifestyle and licensing brand doesn't publish the consumer COAs, named labs, and disclosed manufacturing our rubric weighs most, even though its products are state-regulated and tested. It's driven second by an unusually noisy public record of partner and investor disputes — which we report as the unproven allegations they are, alongside the founder's denials, a retracted suit, and an arbitration Cookies won. This is emphatically not a finding that Cookies did anything wrong, or that its products are unsafe.
So read this file for what it is: Cookies is a cultural and commercial giant, and if you're buying its flower in a licensed dispensary, you're getting a state-tested, regulated product. What you won't get — and what costs it on our particular scale — is the brand-published, batch-level verification that the top hemp brands provide, against a backdrop of heavy (unresolved) business litigation. An F (52/100) on a rubric built for a different kind of company, stated with all its caveats. The full methodology shows every point, and our standing offer of correction and right-of-reply (below) applies in full here.
Questions, answered
Is Cookies a legit brand?
Yes — Cookies is one of the most established, legitimate, and globally recognized brands in cannabis, co-founded by Berner (Gilbert Milam Jr.), with licensed dispensaries across multiple countries and a famous genetics catalog. Our F (52/100) is explicitly NOT a verdict that Cookies is illegitimate or that its products are bad. It's a consumer-transparency score on a rubric built for hemp e-commerce, and a licensed-cannabis lifestyle/licensing brand scores low on it for structural reasons (no brand-published COA library) plus an unusually heavy record of unproven business disputes. If you buy Cookies in a licensed dispensary, you're getting a state-regulated, state-tested product.
Why does Cookies score so low if it's so famous?
Two reasons, and both deserve context. First, our rubric's heaviest pillar is consumer-accessible lab transparency — published COAs from named labs you can check by batch. Cookies is licensed cannabis, so its testing is state-mandated at the dispensary level rather than published on a brand site; that's normal for cannabis but scores low on a hemp-calibrated yardstick. Second, Cookies' public record is dominated by litigation — multiple investor and partner disputes — which we count as part of the reputation pillar. Crucially, those lawsuits are unproven allegations; the founder denies them, one was retracted, and Cookies actually won a related arbitration. The fame is real; the low score reflects a rubric mismatch plus a noisy record, not a quality judgment.
What are the Cookies lawsuits about?
Cookies and its principals have been sued by several investors and business partners in civil cases that, broadly, allege self-dealing, kickbacks, and mismanagement, plus one genetics-partner dispute over a joint venture. It is essential to be precise: these are unadjudicated allegations, not proven facts. The picture is also mixed — one roughly $38M suit was voluntarily dismissed with the plaintiff retracting its allegations, and in a separate dispute with a retail licensee an arbitrator ruled in Cookies' favor for about $22.7M (now under appeal). A court order over royalty routing also prompted a Cookies filing warning of possible insolvency. Founder Berner has publicly called the allegations false and says he'll disprove them in court. We report the documented existence of these disputes, not anyone's version of who's right.
Does Cookies make a hemp or delta-8 product I can buy online?
Not that we could confirm. Cookies is a licensed-cannabis and lifestyle brand; its cannabis products are sold only in licensed dispensaries, and the only line legally shippable nationwide is its Cookies SF streetwear. We found no confirmed Cookies-operated hemp/CBD line. Be cautious: 'Cookies'-branded delta-8 sold in gas stations or smoke shops is generally counterfeit or unauthorized, not a real Cookies product. (A federal class action does allege some products were mislabeled as delta-8 hemp, but that's an unproven allegation, not confirmation of an official hemp line.) If you see 'Cookies' hemp gummies online or at a convenience store, treat them as unverified and likely unauthorized.
Are Cookies products tested and safe?
Cookies' cannabis products sold in licensed dispensaries are subject to state-mandated lab testing and track-and-trace — a real regulatory safety floor that hemp brands don't have. The transparency gap our score flags is different: Cookies doesn't publish a consumer-accessible COA library on its brand site, so you can't pull a Cookies product's specific lab report from the brand the way you can with a top hemp brand. We also found no recall attributable to a Cookies-company product (the 'cookies strain' recalls you might see are unrelated strain-name collisions). So: state-tested at the point of sale, yes; brand-level batch verification you can check yourself, no — which is the structural reason the testing pillar scores low.
How did you research this, and is it fair to Cookies?
Every claim is from a public source — USPTO and SEC filings, trade-press reporting (MJBizDaily, Ganjapreneur, others), court records, and Cookies' own materials — and we went to unusual lengths to be fair, because much of this brand's record is unproven litigation. We stated up front that our hemp-calibrated rubric fits a licensed-cannabis lifestyle brand awkwardly; we labeled every investor/partner dispute as an unadjudicated allegation; we included the founder's on-record denials, the suit that was retracted, and the arbitration Cookies won; we corrected name and entity errors ('Jigar Patel,' 'Cookies Enterprises'); and we attributed no counterfeit product or strain-name recall to the company. The F reflects a rubric mismatch plus a documented, noisy record — not a finding of wrongdoing. Our correction and right-of-reply offer (below) applies in full.