Weedmaps parent WM Technology reported lower revenue and a quarterly loss on November 9, offering a view of pressure on the businesses that help cannabis retailers reach customers. The results connect the shopping experience on a cannabis marketplace with a less visible concern: whether its business clients can keep paying for their presence there.

The company’s third-quarter announcement covers the period ended September 30, 2026. Revenue was $38.5 million, compared with $42.2 million a year earlier, and consolidated net loss was $5.9 million, versus net income of $3.6 million. Management attributed much of the revenue pressure to client payment difficulties.

The client count measures businesses, not shoppers

Average monthly paying clients declined to 4,899 from 5,221. Average monthly revenue per paying client was $2,618, compared with $2,693 a year earlier. Those figures describe the company’s paying business relationships; they are not a count of people browsing cannabis menus or the amount a shopper spends on flower.

That distinction matters because a marketplace serves more than one audience. The consumer may experience it as a place to discover products, compare listings or find a retailer. The paying business evaluates a different transaction: whether the service is worth its advertising or commerce budget.

A decline in paying clients therefore cannot, by itself, establish that consumer interest in cannabis fell by the same amount. Likewise, a rise in browsing activity would not automatically prove that business customers are profitable or able to pay their bills. These measures answer different questions.

California remains a major part of the picture

The quarterly filing says approximately 61% of revenue came from California in both the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30. The corresponding share was approximately 56% a year earlier. Substantially all revenue was generated in the United States.

Geographic concentration is useful context when reading a national-sounding cannabis technology story. Results from a platform with a large exposure to one state should not be treated as a complete survey of every legal market. Different customer mixes can produce different outcomes even within the same industry.

The filing also describes the composition of nine-month revenue: Featured Listings and WM Deal products represented approximately 63%, Standard Listings 31% and other advertising solutions 6%. These are revenue categories, not measures of how much shelf space a dispensary devotes to particular products.

For an operator evaluating marketing, that breakdown suggests a useful question: what exactly is being purchased and measured? A listing, a promotional placement and a completed retail sale are different steps. Assessing them together requires evidence about the business’s own results, rather than assuming visibility automatically equals revenue.

A positive adjusted figure does not erase a loss

WM Technology reported adjusted EBITDA of approximately $0.8 million, down from $7.6 million. Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP measure, with the company’s reconciliation showing adjustments beyond ordinary net income. It should be read alongside the loss, rather than presented as an interchangeable description of profitability.

There is another distinction within the reported loss itself. The consolidated figure was $5.9 million, while the amount attributable to WM Technology was approximately $4.2 million after the non-controlling-interest allocation. A headline using either number needs to identify what it measures.

For readers who do not follow earnings reports, the important point is consistency. Compare like periods and like measures. A quarterly result should not be compared casually with a nine-month total, and an adjusted measure should not be set against a prior-year net-income figure as though the labels do not matter.

The outlook is still an estimate

As of the announcement, management expected fourth-quarter revenue to decline by a low-single-digit percentage from the third quarter. It also described a planned sponsored advertising product for brands. These are forward-looking statements, not completed fourth-quarter results or proof that a new product has already generated revenue.

The next meaningful test is whether later reporting supports those expectations. A strategy can be coherent without its outcome being established. Readers should keep the reported quarter, management’s explanation and its forecast separate when judging the announcement.

Our report on Missouri’s interstate cannabis guidance concerns a different issue, but highlights why the industry cannot be understood as a single unrestricted national market. For cannabis businesses, location and operating rules remain part of the commercial context.

WM Technology’s quarter shows pressure on the business side of cannabis discovery. The useful takeaway is not a prediction about its share price or the whole industry’s direction. It is a clearer view of the measures behind a familiar marketplace: paying clients, advertising revenue, geographic exposure and the difference between current results and future plans.

Illustrative business workspace photograph; not WM Technology offices or its software. Photo: Jakub Żerdzicki / Unsplash.

Village Farms International reported record cannabis sales on November 9, with international shipments helping its latest quarter while cannabis profit measures moved lower than a year earlier. The combination makes this a more revealing earnings report than a record-sales headline alone suggests: growth in one part of a cannabis business can coexist with tighter margins.

The company’s third-quarter release covers the three months ended September 30, 2026. Figures below are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise identified. These are reported operating results and management expectations, not a prediction of the company’s share price.

Cannabis sales rise, margins retreat

Village Farms reported cannabis sales of $55 million, up 3% from approximately $53.5 million a year earlier. International cannabis exports reached $20.8 million, increasing 75% year over year and remaining roughly level with the preceding quarter’s record. The export business was a prominent contributor to the growth story.

But cannabis gross margin declined to 48% from 55%. Cannabis net income fell to $7.8 million from $12 million, while adjusted EBITDA from continuing cannabis operations declined to $14.7 million from $20.2 million. The company cited softer Canadian wholesale spot pricing among the factors affecting profitability.

Those figures describe different layers of the same operation. Sales show the value of business booked. Gross margin indicates how much remains after the costs included at that stage of the accounts. Net income and an adjusted operating measure then answer further questions. A record at the top of the statement does not require a record farther down.

The group is larger than its cannabis segment

Consolidated quarterly sales were $66.9 million, compared with $66.7 million a year earlier. The company’s quarterly SEC filing reports net income attributable to shareholders of about $10 million, versus $10.2 million in the comparable quarter. Those group totals should not be substituted for the cannabis figures.

Village Farms’ operations include Canadian cannabis businesses, a U.S. CBD business, Netherlands cannabis activities and produce operations. Readers evaluating a headline about its overall performance therefore need to ask which segment produced the change. The group total and a cannabis-only comparison are useful together precisely because they have different boundaries.

That is also why adjusted EBITDA should retain its full label. It is a company-reported adjusted measure, not interchangeable with net income or money left in a bank account. When comparing cannabis businesses, start with matching periods and definitions before deciding that a larger number represents stronger underlying performance.

Quarterly cash and the longer view

The release reports $9.5 million in consolidated operating cash flow for the quarter. The filing’s nine-month statement tells a separate, longer-period story: operating cash from continuing operations was approximately $1.6 million, compared with $46.7 million in the prior-year nine-month period. Working-capital movements were a major difference in that comparison.

These figures do not contradict each other. A strong quarter can arrive after earlier cash demands, and a nine-month total incorporates all three quarters. Mixing the two periods would obscure rather than explain the business. The filing also reports about $17.3 million of capital expenditures over nine months, up from $7.1 million.

For anyone following the sector’s expansion, that creates a practical reading order: examine the quarter, then step back to the year-to-date statement, and then consider investment spending separately. The question is how the operation funds its plans over time, rather than whether one isolated cash figure looks attractive.

Expansion remains a forward-looking story

Management described the Netherlands’ second phase as fully planted and outlined further Canadian capacity work. Its Delta 2 expansion is expected to finish in the first quarter of 2027 and reach full capacity around midyear. These are expectations about future operations, which should remain clearly separated from production already achieved.

That separation is particularly important in cannabis, where a facility plan, a planted crop, a shipment and recognized revenue mark different stages. An announced expansion can establish the direction of a strategy without establishing when all of its financial contribution will appear.

Our earlier report on Cresco’s latest quarter offers another example of why sales, losses and cash flow deserve separate attention. Village Farms adds an international dimension to that conversation, alongside a clear reminder that export growth and margin pressure can appear in the same report.

The next useful checkpoint is execution: whether the outlined capacity milestones arrive, how international demand translates into shipments, and whether improved sales ultimately support profitability and cash generation. Monday’s results establish the starting figures for that assessment; they do not settle the outcome in advance.

For industry readers, the most useful comparison in the next report will use the same definitions again. Track cannabis revenue against cannabis margins, consolidated cash against consolidated cash, and completed investment against the timetable management has described. That consistent approach leaves room for both the encouraging export figures and the pressures elsewhere in the accounts, without selecting only the numbers that support a preferred narrative.

Illustrative cannabis cultivation stock photo; not a Village Farms facility. Photo: Evan Strock / Unsplash.

Illinois hemp businesses are asking a federal court to interrupt a November 12 change that could move many THC products off ordinary retail shelves and into the state’s licensed cannabis system. Their emergency request puts a fast-approaching state deadline at the center of a dispute over who can make, distribute and sell hemp-derived products.

For cannabis consumers, the immediate issue is where a familiar drink or other product can be sold. For retailers, it is whether an existing inventory will still fit the rules. The lawsuit is a request for relief, not evidence that a judge has already suspended the law.

Hemp Law Watch reported the November 5 filing and linked the court papers. The underlying documents identify the case as Illinois Healthy Alternatives Association and others v. Raoul and others, number 1:26-cv-13799, in the Northern District of Illinois.

What the businesses want the court to stop

The emergency motion seeks a temporary restraining order followed by a preliminary injunction. It challenges the reclassification of federally lawful hemp products as cannabis, the 0.4-milligram total-THC limit per container, and restrictions affecting purchases and sales involving out-of-state businesses.

The plaintiffs also ask the court to prevent enforcement that would require hemp companies to obtain licenses under Illinois’ Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act for those transactions. Those are the requested remedies. The motion itself does not establish that any of them has been granted.

In their complaint, the association and business plaintiffs argue that the changes unlawfully interfere with interstate commerce. They describe economic harm to businesses operating in the existing hemp market. Those assertions are the plaintiffs’ case for intervention, rather than judicial findings that the statute is unconstitutional.

The state’s published plan

The Illinois Department of Revenue’s October bulletin says the state plans enforcement beginning November 12. It specifies that consumable or topical products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will no longer qualify as hemp under the new framework.

The unit matters: that is a container limit, not a percentage and not a per-serving allowance. The bulletin says products classified as cannabis must meet cannabis-system requirements and may be sold to consumers only through appropriately licensed dispensaries. Simply changing a product’s shelf label would not establish compliance.

The department separately says Illinois intends to proceed on its state timeline despite the federal delay described in the bulletin. Treating every hemp deadline as one national date would therefore miss the distinction at the heart of this week’s retail disruption.

How Illinois arrived here

Governor JB Pritzker’s June 12 signing announcement presented Senate Bill 3222 as a consumer-protection and cannabis-market reform package. The announcement described an immediate prohibition on intoxicating-hemp sales to people under 21, with additional classification changes taking effect in November.

The administration emphasized testing, detailed labels and packaging rules designed to prevent misleading marketing to children. The package also included medical-access and social-equity provisions. That wider scope helps explain why the debate is about an entire regulatory framework, even when shoppers encounter it as a disappearing beverage.

The business plaintiffs see that framework differently. Their filings focus on market access and the consequences of requiring existing hemp trade to operate through a separate licensing structure. Readers can recognize those competing positions without assuming that a public-safety objective settles the legal challenge or that a lawsuit disproves the state’s rationale.

What to watch before Thursday

The next consequential document would be a court order specifying whether enforcement is paused, which provisions it covers and for how long. A hearing announcement, a complaint and a granted injunction are different events. Any update should identify which one has actually occurred before describing the deadline as changed.

For businesses, the practical distinction is between preparing for the published rule and relying on an anticipated court victory. Inventory decisions need the current official requirements and any actual order, rather than a prediction about what a judge might do. Consumers should likewise confirm a seller’s current licensed status instead of assuming yesterday’s availability will continue.

This report describes the filings and the state’s stated plan as reviewed November 9. It does not report an injunction or a final decision. The legal status should be checked again before publication and before treating November 12 as either cancelled or certain to proceed unchanged.

Readers following an update should also look for the order’s scope. Relief for named parties can differ from a broader pause, and an interim decision can differ from a final ruling on the merits. Reporting the text and duration of an order would be more useful than treating every courtroom development as a permanent win or loss.

Illustrative stock beverage shelves; not THC products or an Illinois store. Photo: Michael Shu / Unsplash.