Cannabis Ads During Mets Games? Here's What New York Law Actually Says

The New York Post and other outlets recently spotlighted cannabis advertising appearing during New York Mets broadcasts on SNY, the team's regional sports network. The story drew criticism from parent advocacy groups and several elected officials, who argued that any cannabis advertising on a televised baseball game risks exposing minors. The cannabis advertiser quoted in the coverage responded that its placements comply with New York state rules and are targeted at adults of legal age.

The coverage framed the dispute as a culture clash between an emerging legal industry and audiences accustomed to a cannabis-free broadcast experience. What it did not always make clear is what the rules actually say — and how a state-licensed cannabis brand can legally advertise on a regional sports broadcast in the first place. That is what this piece sorts out.

Editorial note. Good Grades is a licensed New York adult-use dispensary. We have a clear point of view about the cannabis industry, but this piece is written as a neutral fact-check of the legal questions raised in recent coverage — not as a defense of any particular advertiser or broadcast.

Cannabis advertising in New York is governed by the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) and the rules issued by the New York State Office of Cannabis Management (OCM). OCM's adult-use regulations include detailed marketing and advertising restrictions for licensees.

Two rules matter most for the Mets broadcast question:

1. Audience-composition rule. Cannabis advertising is generally permitted in media or venues where the licensee can demonstrate, with reliable audience data, that at least 85% of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older. This is the same threshold many other regulated adult-product categories use.
2. Content restrictions. Even when an audience qualifies, the content of the ad still has to comply: no targeting of minors, no cartoons, no youth-oriented imagery, no health claims, no depictions of consumption, no promotion of overconsumption, and required disclosures (such as "for adults 21+" and warnings).

In other words: a cannabis brand has to clear both a where can the ad run test and a what can the ad show test. Failing either one is a licensee compliance issue with OCM.

Sports broadcasts are uniquely contested ground for any age-restricted advertising — cannabis, alcohol, sports betting, prescription drugs — because the audience straddles several lines at once.

• It is mostly an adult audience. Regional Mets broadcasts on SNY skew heavily toward adult viewers, which is why the network can sell beer, hard-seltzer, sportsbook, and now cannabis inventory in the first place.
• It is also a family audience. Some households watch baseball with kids in the room, which is why critics object to any adult-product advertising during the game — not just cannabis.
• Alcohol is the obvious comparison. Beer brands have advertised on baseball broadcasts for nearly a century. The legal framework is different — alcohol ads are self-regulated under federal law, cannabis ads are state-regulated — but the family-audience objection is structurally the same.
• Sports betting changed the baseline. Since New York legalized mobile sports wagering in 2022, sportsbook ads have saturated regional sports broadcasts. Cannabis ads are arriving into an environment already crowded with adult-product messaging.
• Audience measurement is imperfect. The 85% threshold relies on third-party audience data (Nielsen and similar), which can be debated case by case.

Critics quoted in the original coverage objected on the grounds that any cannabis ad on a baseball broadcast is inappropriate. That is a policy preference — a fair one to hold — but it is not the same as a violation of current law.

The advertiser's position — that the placements comply with state rules and target adults — is plausible on its face if the broadcast audience meets the 85%-adult threshold and the ad creative complies with the content restrictions above. Both are verifiable facts; neither has been publicly disclosed in the coverage.

What would change the verdict to "False / Violation": (1) OCM issuing a notice or penalty to the licensee; (2) audience data showing the broadcast does not meet the 85% threshold; or (3) ad creative containing prohibited content (cartoons, youth imagery, consumption, etc.). None of those have been reported.

Even if every current ad complies with every current rule, the broader policy question is legitimate: where should a legal adult-use product be allowed to advertise, and where should it stay out of the frame?

Reasonable answers cluster around a few options:

• Match the alcohol framework. Allow cannabis advertising wherever alcohol is allowed, subject to the same audience-composition and content standards. This is roughly the current New York posture.
• Tighter audience-composition. Raise the 85% threshold (some jurisdictions use 71.6% or 73.6% based on Census data; others use 85% or higher) or require additional verification for high-reach broadcast inventory.
• Channel restrictions. Carve out specific channels — broadcast sports, daytime TV, outdoor near schools — as off-limits regardless of audience composition.
• Disclosure-first. Allow placements but require larger, longer, or more prominent age-gating, health warnings, and licensee identification on every ad.

The cannabis industry's interest is straightforward: a legal product needs the ability to reach legal customers, especially when those customers are currently being courted by an illicit market that follows no rules at all. Public-health advocates' interest is also straightforward: minimize youth exposure and the risk of normalization at vulnerable ages. Both are valid; the policy work is calibrating between them.

The "cannabis ads on Mets games" story is being told as a scandal. It is more accurately a regulatory milestone: a state-legal industry is now mature enough to buy regional sports inventory the same way every other adult-product category does. That is what legalization looks like in practice — not just dispensaries opening, but a normal advertising ecosystem developing around them.

That does not mean every placement is the right one, or that every viewer will be comfortable with the change. Both things can be true. The job of regulators, broadcasters, and licensees is to keep the rules clear, enforce them transparently, and keep underage audiences out of the targeting set. The job of the public is to push back when any of those fail.

What is not useful is a story that conflates "I don't like seeing this ad" with "this ad is illegal." Those are different claims, and treating them as the same one slows down the harder, more interesting conversation about what the rules should be.