Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Faces Potential Defamation Lawsuit from Hometown Hero Over THC Ban Claims

In a press conference on May 28, 2025, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick took aim at hemp-derived THC products, brandishing a bag of Hometown Hero’s Delta-9 “Cereal Bites” to push for Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), a proposed ban on such products. But his claims about the Austin-based cannabis company’s products have sparked accusations of slander and defamation, with Hometown Hero’s legal team now exploring a lawsuit against the powerful politician. The controversy, which could have far-reaching implications for Texas’s $8 billion hemp industry, raises questions about political rhetoric, economic consequences, and the integrity of legislative processes.

The Press Conference That Ignited the Firestorm

During the press conference, Patrick made bold assertions about Hometown Hero’s products, claiming their Cereal Bites contained a staggering 6,000 mg of THC per bag and were untested with unknown ingredients. He went further, labeling the products “poison” that could “permanently alter users’ minds” and suggesting they were marketed to children. These statements, delivered with theatrical flair—Patrick reportedly threw products at reporters—were meant to galvanize support for SB 3, which seeks to outlaw consumable hemp products containing any level of THC.

Hometown Hero, a veteran-founded company known for its hemp-derived edibles and CBD products, swiftly fired back. In a series of social media posts, the company accused Patrick of “blatantly lying” about their Cereal Bites, clarifying that each bag contains 200 mg of THC (20 mg per piece), not 6,000 mg. They emphasized that their products are third-party lab-tested, with certificates of analysis available, and comply with Texas law, which permits hemp products with less than 0.3% delta-9 THC. Hometown Hero also enforces strict age restrictions, selling only to customers 21 and older with ID verification.

“Hometown Hero is prepared to take legal action to protect our reputation and the hemp industry,” said CEO Lukas Gilkey in a statement. “These false claims not only harm our business but threaten an industry that supports 53,000 jobs and generates $8 billion in revenue for Texas.”

A Case for Defamation?

Under Texas law, defamation—including slander (spoken falsehoods) and libel (written falsehoods)—requires proving that a false statement was made to a third party, damaged the plaintiff’s reputation, and was made with negligence or actual malice. Hometown Hero’s potential lawsuit against Patrick hinges on several key points:

• False Statements: Patrick’s claim of 6,000 mg of THC per bag is demonstrably false, as Hometown Hero’s packaging clearly states 200 mg. His assertion that the products are untested is also refuted by the company’s third-party lab results, which are publicly accessible.

• Reputational Harm: By calling the products “poison” and implying they target children, Patrick’s statements could deter customers and retailers, damaging Hometown Hero’s brand in a trust-sensitive industry. The press conference’s wide media coverage amplified the potential harm.

• Negligence or Malice: As a public official with access to resources, Patrick’s failure to verify the THC content or testing status could be deemed negligent. If Hometown Hero can show he knowingly misrepresented facts or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, they could argue actual malice, strengthening their case.

Legal experts suggest Hometown Hero has a credible case. A user on X, @_TeddyBrosevelt, echoed this sentiment, noting, “Patrick’s 6,000 mg claim and saying the products aren’t tested are flat-out lies. Hometown Hero has a solid shot at a defamation suit.” The company’s prompt response and legal team’s involvement signal their intent to pursue action, potentially targeting both Patrick’s statements and the broader implications of SB 3.

Challenges to Hometown Hero’s Case

Despite the strong grounds for a lawsuit, Hometown Hero faces hurdles. Patrick, as Lieutenant Governor, may claim qualified immunity, arguing his statements were made in his official capacity to promote legislation. However, if the court finds his remarks went beyond protected legislative speech—particularly with the specific targeting of Hometown Hero’s product—this defense could falter.

Additionally, Patrick’s “poison” comment could be argued as opinion rather than fact, though his claims about THC content and testing are verifiable and false. Proving damages, such as lost sales or diminished customer trust directly tied to the press conference, may also be challenging. Still, the hemp industry’s broader economic stakes—53,000 jobs and $8 billion in revenue—provide a compelling backdrop for demonstrating harm.

The political context adds complexity. SB 3, which passed both the Texas Senate and House, awaits Governor Greg Abbott’s decision by June 12, 2025. Critics argue the bill, like other sprawling legislation, obscures its full impact, potentially sneaking in provisions that harm businesses and consumers. Patrick’s dramatic rhetoric may be seen as political posturing, making courts hesitant to intervene in legislative debates.

The Bigger Picture: Political Influence and Economic Fallout

The controversy over Patrick’s statements ties into concerns about political influence in Texas.

Hometown Hero’s fight is not just about one company’s reputation—it’s about the future of Texas’s hemp industry. SB 3 threatens to eliminate 53,000 jobs and an $8 billion revenue stream, according to industry estimates. Hemp businesses like Hometown Hero, which donates to veterans’ causes and employs rigorous safety standards, argue the ban is based on misinformation and overreach. The company is also preparing a separate lawsuit to challenge SB 3 itself,