Affinity Grow Under Fire: The Case Against Rino Ferrarese - In His Own Words

CT CannaTimes Editor - 4.16.2026

The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection has brought a sweeping enforcement action against Rino Ferrarese and his company, Affinity Grow.

What makes this case extraordinary is not just the severity of the allegations — it’s how closely they mirror Ferrarese’s own public statements.

The Charges Against Affinity Grow

According to the official Notice and Particulars issued by the state, Affinity Grow is accused of:

• Making false or misleading representations

• Engaging in fraudulent or deceitful practices

• Failing to comply with cannabis regulations

• Failing to maintain accurate records and tracking data

• Failing to properly test cannabis products before sale

Allegation #1: Mislabeling Failed Batches

The state claims that on June 11, 2025:

Five cannabis samples were submitted under a different batch name even though they were actually from previously failed batches.

Those batches had already failed chromium testing — a key contaminant screening.

The state further alleges:

The samples were “provided under false names… to enter them into the Cannabis Analytics Tracking System without required authorization.”

Allegation #2: Untested Edible Products

From September 2024 through December 2025:

Affinity Grow produced at least 76 cannabis gummy products without testing them for residual solvents

What Rino Ferrarese Said — On Record

Months before these allegations, Ferrarese testified publicly before lawmakers about testing, contamination, and production practices.

On Contamination During Processing

Ferrarese acknowledged:

“You determine critical points within that manufacturing process where potentially you can introduce contamination.”

He further warned:

“You don’t want to get to the end of the batch and then… ‘I hope it passes.’”

On Testing Requirements

Ferrarese argued that current testing systems have limitations:

“The methodologies… are general and we can detect three different types of chromium.”

“We can’t discern how much of the bad chromium is present.”

The Overlap

The state’s case focuses on:

• Failed chromium tests
• Sample misrepresentation
• Lack of required product testing

Ferrarese’s own testimony focuses on:

• Contamination risks during production
• Limitations in testing systems
• The importance of process control before final testing

Why This Case Matters

This enforcement action is not just about regulatory compliance.

It is about:

• Data integrity in testing systems
• Accuracy in product tracking
• Whether products entering the market were properly verified

At its core, the case centers on one question:

Did Affinity Grow follow the same standards it publicly discussed?

What Comes Next

The state has ordered Ferrarese and Affinity Grow to appear and:

“Show cause… why [their] cannabis establishment license should not be revoked, suspended or otherwise sanctioned.”

CT CannaTimes Bottom Line

The allegations against Affinity Grow are serious, specific, and document-based.

And in a rare twist:

The public record already contains Rino Ferrarese’s own detailed statements about the exact systems now under scrutiny.

The outcome of this case will determine not just accountability — but credibility.