Thirteen states have improved how they share licensed cannabis business data to the public in the last year, according to CRB Monitor’s 2026 Regulatory Data Transparency Scorecard, which is good news for financial services businesses trying to serve the cannabis industry.
Transparency is critical for cannabis markets to thrive as the availability of company data helps financial institutions comply with federal laws and reduce risk. CRB Monitor’s data team regularly reaches out to regulators to collect cannabis-related business data for its database. Recognizing that some states are more transparent than others, the Nashville-based firm developed an assessment of how openly licensing agencies share the information financial institutions need.
Banks and other financial companies are required by the Department of Justice to know their customers under Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. Under specific federal guidance, financial institutions must regularly verify and monitor each cannabis-related customer’s business information, license, ownership and enforcement actions.
“Transparency matters because it helps financial institutions make more efficient and confident compliance decisions, and that helps expand access to banking for legitimate cannabis businesses,” said CRB Monitor CEO Steven Kemmerling.
In its third year, the 2026 transparency scorecard shows continued improvements, with 25% of jurisdictions earning better scores than last year. However, ownership information and enforcement disclosures need the most improvement.
Transparency necessary for banking compliance
The 2026 transparency scorecard evaluated regulatory agencies in 51 states and territories that have licensed cannabis business markets in the U.S. Data are current as of April 30, 2026.
Each agency receives a score of 1 to 5 in three categories based on the level of detailed information they provide, for a total high score of 15:
- Business information — Including legal and “doing business as” names, along with basic contact information such as phone numbers, email addresses and websites.
- License information — Supplying comprehensive licensing data including license numbers, licensing stages, addresses, types, and issuance and expiration dates.
- Ownership information — Reflecting current and past beneficial owner and leadership records.
This year, 13 states scored better than in 2025. Most improvements are tied to agencies expanding access to license data, ownership information, and visibility into the stages of the licensing lifecycle. Changes in database systems, state or agency leadership, and laws all affect transparency, for the better or worse.
Data are most useful when they are regularly updated and easily retrievable. Some states make the information available, but only after a time-consuming, and sometimes costly, public records request.
“We continue to see real progress, especially where agencies are publishing more complete license and ownership data, but the biggest gaps are still around consistency and usability,” said Jill Seaks, who heads the CRB Monitor data team.
Kentucky and Minnesota improved the most, adding five points each for total scores of 13 and 12, respectively. Washington gained one point, which allowed it to join the ranks of Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont with a perfect score. Another notable mention is Pennsylvania, which added four points for a total score of 13.
New to the list this year are Nebraska and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Despite being in the early licensing stage, Nebraska starts off with a strong score of 12. According to the CRB Monitor database, there are four approved/pending licenses and 30 applications in Nebraska, as of April 27. The USVI, with 25 approved/pending licenses as of May 18, scored a total of just 5.
Only New Mexico dropped, by one point for a total score of 10, although it improved the availability of business data.
Owner information lags
Ownership information is a key element of regulatory compliance. Owners who receive disciplinary actions in one state may attempt to buy licenses in other states. Lately, several states, such as Missouri, are watching for predatory owners who seek naïve local partners to obtain limited social equity licenses.
However, many states don’t provide much in the way of ownership records. State laws often prevent the release of ownership details because they are considered private, confidential information.
Only 18 states earned a perfect score of 5, while 13 states received the lowest score of 1.
On the other hand, when it comes to providing basic business information, most agencies are very good. All but 14 received a perfect score of 5 for business transparency. The 14 earned scores of 3.
License information has the greatest variance. Only 10 agencies scored a perfect 5, but many more earned scores of 4. Only Guam, South Dakota and the USVI received 1 point each.
6 more states provide enforcement actions
Separately, CRB Monitor notes whether agencies report enforcement actions. It’s important for financial companies to know about enforcement actions and identify bad actors so they can cancel accounts and submit suspicious activity reports (SARs) to FinCEN.
However, enforcement information differs greatly across jurisdictions in regards to type, detail, terminology and timing of public disclosures. Usually, the more established markets have stronger enforcement teams as newer markets concentrate on initial licensing and getting businesses up and running. Over recent years, agencies have started focusing on lab testing quality and preventing inversion and diversion.
This year, 32 agencies provide compliance information, six more than last year. Those states are Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia.
Since CRB Monitor has been publishing the annual transparency scorecard, more agencies are reaching out to understand their scores and how they can improve. “That engagement is very encouraging,” Kemmerling said.
Download the report to see how each licensing agency scored.
