Leafly Holdings, Inc. (LFLY) Risk Factors

Except in limited circumstances, U.S. federal law, and more specifically the CSA, proscribes the cultivation, processing, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis. It is also federally illegal to advertise the sale of cannabis, or to use the internet to facilitate the sale of cannabis. Although the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoids from the definition of "marihuana" in the CSA, and the Omnibus Spending bill (described below) protects state medical cannabis programs, cannabis remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States and is currently illegal under U.S. federal law. Even in those U.S. states in which the growing, processing, distribution, sale and use of cannabis has been legalized, these activities continue to violate U.S. federal law. Additionally, in 2018, a series of memoranda and guidance from 2009 to 2014 that generally directed U.S. Attorneys not to enforce federal cannabis laws against actors who were in compliance with state guidance were formally rescinded. Since U.S. federal laws criminalizing the use of cannabis pre-empt state laws that legalize its use, continuation of U.S. federal law in its current state regarding cannabis could limit our ability to do business in the United States. As a result, U.S. federal law enforcement authorities, in their attempt to regulate the illegal or unauthorized production, distribution, promotion, sale, possession or use of cannabis, may seek to bring criminal actions against our suppliers under the CSA or other federal criminal laws. If our suppliers are found to be violating U.S. federal law relating to cannabis, they may be subject not only to criminal charges and convictions, but also to forfeiture of property, significant fines and penalties, disgorgement of profits, administrative sanctions, cessation of business activities, or civil liabilities arising from proceedings initiated by either the U.S. government or private citizens. Any of these actions or consequences to our suppliers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations, or could force us to cease operations, and as a result, our investors could lose their entire investment. Further, to the extent any law enforcement actions require us to respond to subpoenas, or undergo search warrants, including for supplier records, cannabis businesses could elect to cease using our products. Until the U.S. federal government changes the laws with respect to cannabis, and particularly if the U.S. Congress does not extend the Omnibus Spending Bill's protection of state medical cannabis programs (described below) to apply to all state cannabis programs, U.S. federal authorities could more strictly enforce current federal prohibitions and restrictions. An increase in federal enforcement against companies licensed under state cannabis laws could negatively impact the state cannabis industries and, in turn, our business, financial condition, results of operations, brand and reputation. For more information regarding risks the cannabis industry may present to our business, see the subsection entitled "- Additional Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry."

Some of our suppliers sell products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids, including CBD and certain forms of THC (including but not limited to delta-8 THC). Until recently, hemp and hemp extracts (except mature stalks, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds and any other compound, manufacture, salt derivative, mixture or preparation of such parts) were classified by the federal government as "marihuana" under the CSA. The Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-79 (the "2014 Farm Bill") and the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 (the "2018 Farm Bill"), altered hemp's status, such that currently hemp (which must, by definition, contain less than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis) and hemp extracts, including CBD, are no longer defined as "marihuana" nor classified as a controlled substance. Many states have revised their own laws to make hemp and hemp derivatives legal. These laws generally impose licensing and regulatory requirements for the cultivation, processing, transportation, or distribution of hemp and hemp products. Many states also impose restrictions on the type of products that may be sold, including prohibiting the sale of certain hemp or CBD products, such as ingestible products or smokable hemp, or limiting the manner in which they may be sold by, for example, prohibiting health claims in advertising. States could change their laws and make the requirements to grow, process, transport, and distribute hemp and hemp products more difficult. States could also investigate whether or determine that our suppliers were found to be operating in violation of state law. Any of these actions or consequences to our suppliers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") claims that the Food, Drugs & Cosmetics Act significantly limits the legality of hemp-derived CBD products and the manner in which hemp-derived CBD products may be marketed and sold. In addition, we do not believe that any of our suppliers' claims about the legality of hemp-derived THC products have been tested in court. If our suppliers are found to be violating U.S. federal law relating to hemp-derived products, they may be subject not only to criminal charges and convictions, but also to forfeiture of property, significant fines and penalties, disgorgement of profits, administrative sanctions, cessation of business activities, or civil liabilities arising from proceedings initiated by either the U.S. government or private citizens. Any of these actions or consequences to our suppliers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our suppliers are contractually required to represent, warrant and covenant to us that they conduct their business in compliance with applicable state law, which includes any applicable licensing requirements and the regulatory framework enacted by each state or province in which they do business. Suppliers further contractually agree to indemnify us for any damages we may suffer as a result of their noncompliance, and there is no guarantee that such suppliers will be able to fulfill such indemnification obligations. We rely on our suppliers' contractual representations, and generally do not verify them, other than with respect to the licensed status of our suppliers operating cannabis retail and brands (i.e., product) businesses. We require suppliers to provide proof of valid corporate existence at the time we initially onboard them, or, if we understand that state law requires a separate cannabis license, to submit a valid, unexpired state-issued license number. We do not routinely validate whether that license number remains valid during the term of our suppliers' use of our services. As a result, some of our suppliers or their listings currently and in the future may not be in compliance with licensing and related requirements under applicable state or provincial laws and regulations. Any potential legal enforcement actions against any of our suppliers selling cannabis for being unlicensed or insufficiently licensed could negatively impact us. Any legal or regulatory enforcement against us based on the business solutions that we offer, the third-party content available on our platform or noncompliance by our suppliers with licensing and other legal requirements, could subject us to various risks, including monetary penalties and the risk that we elect or are compelled to remove content from our platform and would likely cause us to experience negative publicity. Any of these developments could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, brand, and reputation.

Cannabis, other than hemp (defined by federal law as Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis), is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. Even in states or territories that have legalized cannabis to some extent, the cultivation, possession, and sale of cannabis all violate the CSA and are punishable by imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Moreover, individuals and entities may violate federal law if they aid and abet another in violating the CSA, or conspire with another to violate the law, and violating the CSA is a predicate for certain other crimes, including money laundering laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate and criminalize the sale, possession and use of cannabis, even for individual medical purposes, regardless of whether it is legal under state law. For over eight years, under a policy instituted during President Obama's time in office, the U.S. government has not prioritized the enforcement of those laws against cannabis companies complying with state law and their vendors. On August 29, 2013 former Deputy Attorney General James Michael Cole issued a Memorandum (the "Cole Memo"), which described the criminal enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions against those complying with state cannabis regulatory systems as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources. The Cole Memo gave federal prosecutors discretion not to prosecute state law compliant cannabis companies in states that were regulating cannabis, unless one or more of eight federal priorities were implicated, including use of cannabis by minors, violence, or the use of federal lands for cultivation. On January 4, 2018, then U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum for all U.S. Attorneys (the "Sessions Memo") rescinding the Cole Memo. The Sessions Memo, which remains in effect, states that each U.S. Attorney's Office should follow established principles that govern all federal prosecutions when deciding which cannabis activities to prosecute. As a result, federal prosecutors could and still can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute even state-legal cannabis activities. Since the Sessions Memo was issued nearly three years ago, however, U.S. Attorneys have generally not prioritized the targeting of state law compliant entities. We cannot assure that each U.S. Attorney's Office in each judicial district where we operate will not choose to enforce federal laws governing cannabis sales against state-legal companies such as our business suppliers. Since 2014, versions of the U.S. Omnibus Spending bill have included a provision prohibiting the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration, from using appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. In USA vs. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. The court noted that, if the spending bill provision were not continued, prosecutors could enforce against conduct occurring during the statute of limitations even while the provision was previously in force. Other courts that have considered the issue have ruled similarly, although courts disagree about which party bears the burden of proof of showing compliance or noncompliance with state law. Our policies do not prohibit our state-licensed cannabis retailers from engaging in the cannabis business for adult use that is permissible under state and local laws. Consequently, certain of our retailers currently (and may in the future) sell adult-use cannabis, if permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future, and therefore may be outside any protections extended to medical-use cannabis under the spending bill provision. This could subject our suppliers to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to businesses where cannabis is sold exclusively for medical use, which could in turn materially adversely affect our business. Furthermore, any change in the federal government's enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis sales, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we operate, could result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to supplier base, which would adversely affect our operations, cash flow and financial condition. Although the U.S. Attorney General could issue policy guidance to federal prosecutors that they should not interfere with cannabis businesses operating in compliance with states' laws, any such guidance would not have the force of law, and could not be enforced by the courts. The President alone cannot legalize medical cannabis, and as states have demonstrated, legalizing medical cannabis can take many different forms. While rescheduling cannabis to the CSA's Schedule II would ease certain research restrictions, it would not make the state medical or adult-use programs federally legal. During his confirmation hearing, current Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that he did not see enforcement of federal cannabis law as a high priority use of resources for the DOJ: "This is a question of the prioritization of our resources and prosecutorial discretion. It does not seem to me a useful use of limited resources that we have, to be pursuing prosecutions in states that have legalized and that are regulating the use of marijuana, either medically or otherwise. I don't think that's a useful use. I do think we need to be sure there are no end-runs around the state laws that criminal enterprises are doing. So that kind of enforcement should be continued. But I don't think it's a good use of our resources, where states have already authorized. That only confuses people, obviously, within the state." While the statement is not a promise to avoid federal interference with state cannabis laws, it does signal that the enforcement priorities of DOJ lie elsewhere. Industry observers are hopeful that the various legislative proposals pending in Congress will increase the chances of federal cannabis policy reform. Numerous bills have attracted attention, including the States Reform Act, introduced by Republican members of Congress, as well as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (the "MORE Act"), which was originally co-sponsored by now Vice President Harris in the Senate, and the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act (the "SAFE Act"), which passed the House of Representatives in April 2021 but has not yet passed the Senate. Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer also has proposed draft legislation that would legalize cannabis at the federal level (the "Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act"). However, we cannot provide assurances about the content, timing or chances of passage of a bill legalizing cannabis or liberalizing cannabis regulations. Accordingly, we cannot predict the timing of any change in federal law or possible changes in federal enforcement. In the event that the federal government were to reverse its long-standing hands-off approach to the state legal cannabis markets and start more broadly enforcing federal law regarding cannabis, we would likely be unable to execute our business plan, and our business and financial results would be adversely affected.

We and our suppliers are subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere that prohibit money laundering, including the Money Laundering Control Act (United States), as amended, and the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act (Canada), and the rules and regulations thereunder and any related or similar rules, regulations or guidelines issued, administered or enforced by governmental authorities in the United States, Canada or any other jurisdiction in which we have business operations. Violations of the U.S. anti-money laundering laws require proceeds from enumerated criminal activity, which includes trafficking in cannabis in violation of the CSA. Although we believe that none of our activities implicate the aforementioned money laundering statutes, largely because we believe there is no underlying CSA offense, in the event that any of our business activities, any dividends or distributions therefrom, or any profits or revenues accruing thereby are found to be in violation of money laundering statutes, such transactions may be viewed as proceeds of crime under one or more of the statutes noted above or any other applicable legislation, and any persons, including such U.S. based investors, found to be aiding and abetting us in such violations could be subject to liability. Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction and involve significant costs and expenses, including legal fees. We could also suffer significant penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other remedial measures.

In most jurisdictions which legalized cannabis for adult or medical use, the cannabis industry is subject to a complex and comprehensive set of laws and regulations. Many entities that do business with consumers or suppliers in the cannabis industry institute internal or supplier-facing policies that limit or restrict how they do business with these suppliers, or take steps to verify that their suppliers in the cannabis industry operate in compliance with applicable laws. For example, some financial institutions that service cannabis retailers screen their clients' advertising for compliance with restrictions on cannabis advertising. Some financial institutions have interpreted editorial information that Leafly appends to some product pages within dispensary menus as advertising by those cannabis retailers, and instructed the suppliers to remove such advertising. Some mass media outlets have refused to publish advertisements for Leafly on the basis of perceived risk. The manner in which other companies interpret laws and regulations applicable to the cannabis industry, and the policies they institute as a result may adversely affect our suppliers' operations, which in turn could harm our results of operations.

We are subject to regulation by various federal, state, provincial, local and foreign governmental authorities, including those responsible for monitoring and enforcing employment and labor laws, anti-bribery laws, lobbying and election laws, securities laws and tax laws. These laws and regulations are subject to change over time and thus we must continue to monitor and dedicate resources to ensure continued compliance. In addition, our business is subject to regulation by various federal, state, provincial and foreign governmental agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcing privacy and data protection laws and regulations. Numerous foreign, federal and state laws and regulations govern collection, dissemination, use and confidentiality of personally identifiable health information that may impact our business, potentially including state privacy and confidentiality laws (including state laws requiring disclosure of breaches); federal and state consumer protection and employment laws, and European and other foreign data protection laws. We receive, store, process, and use personal information and other user content. The regulatory framework for privacy issues worldwide, including in the United States, is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, as many new laws and regulations regarding the collection, use and disclosure of personally identifiable information ("PII"), and other data have been adopted or are under consideration and existing laws and regulations may be subject to new and changing interpretations. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission and many state attorneys general are applying federal and state consumer protection laws to impose standards for the online collection, use and dissemination of data. In addition, although we do not believe we are subject to the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), we are aware that at least one state regulator has taken the position that HIPAA does apply to some of our suppliers. In the event we become subject to HIPAA, our costs related to PII would increase. Many foreign countries and governmental bodies, including Canada and the European Union, or E.U., and other relevant jurisdictions where we conduct business have laws and regulations concerning the collection and use of PII and other data obtained from their residents or by businesses operating within their jurisdiction. These laws and regulations often are more restrictive than those in the United States. Laws and regulations in these jurisdictions apply broadly to the collection, use, storage, disclosure and security of data that identifies or may be used to identify or locate an individual, such as names, email addresses and, in some jurisdictions, internet protocol addresses and other types of data. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and its implementing regulations, as amended (the "CCPA"), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, establishes data privacy rights for consumers and compliance requirements for businesses doing business in California. Moreover, California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act, (the "CPRA"), in November 2020. The CPRA significantly modifies the CCPA, creating obligations relating to consumer data beginning on January 1, 2022, with implementing regulations expected on or before July 1, 2022, and enforcement beginning July 1, 2023. In Canada, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the "PIPEDA") governs the collection, use and disclosure of PII in many provinces in Canada, and though it is silent with respect to territorial reach, the Federal Court of Canada has found that PIPEDA will apply to businesses established in other jurisdictions if there is a "real and substantial connection" between the organization's activities and Canada. Provincial privacy commissioners take a similar approach to the interpretation and application of provincial private-sector privacy laws equivalent to PIPEDA. Further, Canada has robust anti-spam legislation. Organizations sending commercial electronic messages to individuals must either have express consent from the individual in the prescribed form or the situation must qualify as an instance of implied consent or other authorization set out in Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation (the "CASL"). The penalties for non-compliance under CASL are significant and the regulator, the Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission, is active with respect to enforcement. In addition, the E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation (the "GDPR"), which went into effect in May 2018, requires subject companies to implement and maintain comprehensive information privacy and security protections with respect to personal data (data that relates to an identified or identifiable individual) about persons in the E.U. that is collected or processed by such companies. The GDPR provides for substantial penalties for noncompliance. Although we are working to comply with those federal, state, provincial and foreign laws and regulations, industry standards, governmental standards, contractual obligations and other legal obligations that apply to us, those laws, regulations, standards and obligations are evolving and may be modified, interpreted and applied in an inconsistent manner from one jurisdiction to another, and may conflict with one another, other requirements or legal obligations, our practices or the features of our applications or platform. Any failure or perceived failure by us or our contractors to comply with federal, state, provincial or foreign laws or regulations, industry standards, contractual obligations or other legal obligations, or any actual or suspected security incident, whether or not resulting in loss of, unauthorized access to, or acquisition, alteration, destruction, release or transfer of PII or other data, may result in governmental enforcement actions and prosecutions, private litigation, fines and penalties or adverse publicity and could cause employees, suppliers and consumers to lose trust in us, which could have an adverse effect on our reputation and business. Any inability or perceived inability (even if unfounded) on our part to adequately address privacy, data protection, and information security concerns, or comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, industry standards, governmental standards, contractual obligations, or other legal obligations, could result in additional cost and liability to us, damage our reputation, inhibit sales, and adversely affect our business. We also expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards concerning privacy, data protection and information security in the United States, Canada, the E.U. and other jurisdictions, and we cannot yet determine the impact such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business. Future laws, regulations, standards and other obligations, or amendments or changes in the interpretation of existing laws, regulations, standards and other obligations, could impair our or our suppliers' ability to collect, use, disclose or otherwise process information relating to employees or consumers, which could decrease demand for our applications, increase our costs and impair our ability to maintain and grow our supplier and consumer bases and increase revenue. Such laws and regulations may require us to implement privacy and security policies, permit users to access, correct and delete personal information stored or maintained by such companies, inform individuals of security breaches that affect their personal information, and, in some cases, obtain individuals' consent to use PII or other data for certain purposes. In addition, a foreign government could require that any data collected in a country not be transferred or disseminated outside of that country, or impose restrictions or conditions upon such dissemination, and we may face difficulty in complying with any such requirements for certain geographic regions. Indeed, many privacy laws, such as those in force in Canada and the E.U., already impose these requirements. If we fail to comply with federal, state, provincial and foreign data privacy laws and regulations, our ability to successfully operate our business and pursue our business goals could be harmed. Furthermore, due to our acceptance of credit cards, we are subject to the PCI-DSS, which is designed to protect the information of credit card users. We have had security incidents in the past, which we do not believe reached the level of a breach that would be reportable under applicable state laws or our other obligations; however, there can be no assurance that our determinations were correct. In the event our determinations are challenged and found to have been incorrect, we may be subject to unfavorable publicity or claims by one or more state attorneys general, federal regulators, or private plaintiffs, any of which could damage our reputation, inhibit sales and adversely affect our business.

Governments may adopt laws and regulations that make it more difficult to operate our business, both domestically and abroad. We are subject to a number of data privacy and internet-related laws and regulations which result in significant compliance burdens. For example, we have settled two claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") that obligated us to make our websites WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliant for users with visual or other impairments. We are currently in the process of making updates to our website to fulfill this obligation. In addition, some legislators have called for increased regulation of the use of information concerning consumer behavior on the internet, including certain targeted advertising practices. Others have called for changes affecting the immunities afforded to websites that publish user-generated content. Our business, including our ability to operate and expand internationally, could be adversely affected if legislation or regulations are adopted, interpreted, or implemented in a manner that is inconsistent with our current business practices and that requires changes to these practices or the design of our website, products or features. In particular, the success of our business has depended, and we expect will continue to depend, on our ability to use the content and other information that our users share with us. Therefore, our business could be harmed by any significant change to applicable laws, regulations or industry practices regarding the use or disclosure of the content that our users share through our website and mobile application. Such changes may require us to modify our service offerings and platform features, possibly in a material manner, and may limit our ability to make use of the content and other information that our users generate on our website and mobile application.

Expansion of our business is, in part, dependent upon continued and future legislative authorization, including by voter initiatives and referenda, of cannabis in various jurisdictions worldwide. Any number of factors could slow, halt, or even reverse progress in this area. For example, some ballot measures in 2020 were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, progress for the industry, while encouraging, is not assured. While there may be ample public support for legislative action in a particular jurisdiction, numerous factors could impact the legislative process, including lobbying efforts by opposing stakeholders as well as legislators' disagreements about how to legalize cannabis as well as the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of applicable laws or regulations. Any one of these factors could slow or halt the legalization of cannabis, which would negatively impact our ability to expand our business. Additionally, the expansion of our business also depends on jurisdictions in which cannabis is currently legalized not narrowing, limiting or repealing existing laws legalizing and regulating cannabis, or altering the regulatory landscape in a way that diminishes the viability of cannabis businesses in those jurisdictions. This result may negatively impact the viability and attractiveness of our service offerings going forward. If such challenges are successful in any jurisdictions that have legalized or are in the process of legalizing cannabis, our ability to expand our business would be negatively impacted.

While we are a technology company, not a cannabis licensee, and as such, are not subject to commercial cannabis regulations that apply to cannabis operators, we cannot guarantee that our systems, protocols, and practices will prevent any and all unauthorized or illegal activities by our suppliers. Our success depends in part on our suppliers' ability to operate consistently with the regulatory and licensing requirements of each state, local, and regional jurisdiction in which they operate. Despite the procedures and protocols in place for license verification by our catalog and compliance team, any non-compliance by our suppliers could put our business at risk, as discussed herein, and could also subject us to potential actions by state regulators, to the extent they could be applied to technology service providers, which could materially adversely affect our business, operations, financial condition, brand, and reputation.

We currently have no need or plans to seek bankruptcy protection. U.S. courts have held that debtors whose income is derived from cannabis or cannabis assets in violation of the CSA cannot seek federal bankruptcy protections. Although we are not in the business of growing or processing cannabis or selling or even possessing cannabis or cannabis products, a U.S. court could determine that our revenue is derived from cannabis or cannabis assets and prevent us from obtaining bankruptcy protections if necessary.

Courts will not enforce a contract deemed to involve a violation of law or public policy. Because cannabis remains illegal under U.S. federal law, parties to contracts involving the state legal cannabis industry have argued that the agreement was void as federally illegal or against public policy. Some courts have accepted this argument in certain cases, usually with adverse results for cannabis companies. While courts have enforced contracts related to activities by state-legal cannabis companies, and the trend is generally to enforce contracts with state-legal cannabis companies and their vendors, there remains doubt and uncertainty that we will be able to enforce our commercial agreements in court for this reason. We cannot be assured that we will have a remedy for breach of contract, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Any property owned by participants in the cannabis industry used in the course of conducting such business, or that represents proceeds of such business or is traceable to proceeds of such business, could be subject to seizure by federal law enforcement and subsequent civil asset forfeiture because of the illegality of the cannabis industry under federal law. Even if the owner of the property is never charged with a crime, the property in question could still be seized and subject to an administrative proceeding by which, with minimal due process, it could be subject to forfeiture. Forfeiture of assets of our cannabis business clients could adversely affect our revenues if it impedes their profitability or operations and our suppliers' ability to continue to subscribe to our services.

Our corporate structure and intercompany arrangements, including the manner in which we develop and use our intellectual property and the transfer pricing of our intercompany transactions, subjects us to the tax laws of various jurisdictions, which are subject to interpretation. The taxing authorities of the jurisdictions in which we operate may challenge our methodologies for valuing developed technology or intercompany arrangements, including our transfer pricing, or determine that the manner in which we operate our business does not achieve the intended tax consequences, which could increase our worldwide effective tax rate and harm our financial position and results of operations.

We are subject to the income and transaction related tax laws primarily in the United States and Canada. New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could affect the tax treatment of our U.S. and foreign earnings. Any new taxes could adversely affect our domestic and foreign business operations, and our business and financial performance. In addition, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, such as Section 280E of the Code, discussed below, could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. Furthermore, changes to the taxation of undistributed foreign earnings could change our future intentions regarding reinvestment of such earnings. The foregoing items could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or operating results. For more information see the subsection entitled "- Additional Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry - Cannabis businesses are subject to unfavorable U.S. tax treatment" and "- Service providers to cannabis businesses may also be subject to unfavorable U.S. tax treatment." Requirements as to taxation vary substantially among jurisdictions. Complying with the tax laws of these jurisdictions can be time consuming and expensive and could potentially subject us to penalties and fees in the future if we were to inadvertently fail to comply. If we were to inadvertently fail to comply with applicable tax laws, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Section 280E of the Code does not allow any deduction or credit for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on business, other than costs of goods sold, if the business (or the activities which comprise the trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedules I and II of the CSA). The IRS has applied this provision to cannabis operations, prohibiting them from deducting expenses associated with cannabis businesses beyond costs of goods sold and asserting assessments and penalties for additional taxes owed. Section 280E of the Code may have a lesser impact on cannabis cultivation and manufacturing operations than on sales operations, which directly affects our suppliers, who are cannabis retailers and brands. However, Section 280E of the Code and related IRS enforcement activity have had a significant impact on the operations of all cannabis companies. While the Section does not directly affect our Company, it lowers our suppliers' profitability, and could result in decreased demand or higher price sensitivity for our listing and marketing services. An otherwise profitable cannabis business may operate at a loss after taking into account its U.S. income tax expenses. This affects us because our sales and operating results could be adversely affected if our suppliers decrease their marketing budgets and are operating on lower profit margins as a result of unfavorable treatment by the Code.

We seek to protect our trademarks, the source code for our proprietary software, domain names, and other proprietary information under a combination of patent law, trade secrets, copyrights, and trademark law to the extent we determine they are appropriate and cost-effective. We regard the protection of our pending patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks and domain names as critical to our success. In particular, we must maintain, protect and enhance the "Leafly" brand. We pursue the registration of our domain names and core trademarks in the United States and in certain jurisdictions abroad. We strive to protect our intellectual property rights by relying on federal, state and common law rights, as well as contractual restrictions. Federal, state and/or local laws may limit or define the nature of permitted goods and services for which we can seek trademark registration. We typically enter into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and contractors, and confidentiality agreements with parties with whom we conduct business in order to limit access to, and disclosure and use of, our proprietary information. However, these contractual arrangements and the other steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property may not prevent the misappropriation or disclosure of our proprietary information nor deter independent development of similar technologies by others. Effective patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark and domain name protection is expensive to develop and maintain, both in terms of initial and ongoing registration requirements and expenses and the costs of defending our rights. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our software or to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. Policing unauthorized use of our software is difficult, and we are unable to determine the extent to which piracy of our software exists or will occur in the future. Litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets, determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others or defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Any litigation of this nature, regardless of outcome or merit, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management and technical resources, any of which could adversely affect our business and operating results. Furthermore, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights may be met with defenses, counterclaims and countersuits attacking the validity and enforceability of our intellectual property rights or alleging that we infringe the counterclaimant's own intellectual property. These steps may be inadequate to protect our intellectual property. Third parties may challenge the validity or ownership of our intellectual property, and these challenges could cause us to lose our rights, in whole or in part, to such intellectual property or narrow its scope such that it no longer provides meaningful protection. We will not be able to protect our intellectual property if we are unable to enforce our rights or if we do not detect unauthorized use of our intellectual property. Despite our precautions, it may be possible for unauthorized third parties to copy our services and platform features and use information that we regard as proprietary to create services and platform features that compete with ours. Some of our terms of use provisions protecting against unauthorized use, copying, transfer and disclosure of our applications may be unenforceable under the laws of certain jurisdictions and foreign countries. Further, the laws of some countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. To the extent we expand our international activities, our exposure to unauthorized copying, transfer and use of our brand, software, and proprietary technology or information may increase. There can be no assurance that our means of protecting our proprietary rights will be adequate or that our competitors will not independently develop similar technology. If we fail to meaningfully protect our intellectual property, our business, brands, operating results and financial condition may be harmed.

It is important to our success that users in all geographies be able to access our platform at all times. We have previously experienced, and may experience in the future, service disruptions, outages and other performance problems due to a variety of factors, including infrastructure changes, human or software errors, capacity constraints due to an overwhelming number of users accessing our platform simultaneously, denial of service attacks, or fraud, ransomware or security attacks. We may not be able to implement adequate preventative measures or halt such attacks, and we cannot guarantee that applicable recovery systems, security protocols, network protection mechanisms and other procedures are or will be adequate to prevent network and service interruption, system failure or data loss. In some instances, we may not be able to identify the cause or causes of these performance problems within an acceptable period of time. It may become increasingly difficult to maintain and improve the availability of our platform, especially during peak usage times and as our solutions become more complex and our user traffic increases. If our platform is unavailable when users attempt to access it or it does not load as quickly as they expect, users may seek other services to obtain the information for which they are looking, and may not return to our platform as often in the future, or at all. This would negatively impact our ability to attract users, suppliers and advertising partners and increase engagement on our website and mobile application. We expect to continue to make significant investments to maintain and improve the availability of our platform and to enable rapid releases of new features and products. To the extent that we do not effectively address capacity constraints, upgrade our systems as needed and continually develop our technology and network architecture to accommodate actual and anticipated changes in technology, our business and operating results may be harmed. Furthermore, any actual or perceived distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, ransomware attack, security breach or other unauthorized access could damage our reputation and brand, result in decreased utilization of our platform, expose us to fines and penalties, government investigations, litigation, require us to expend significant capital and other resources to remediate the incident, and cause increased cybersecurity protection costs. For more information, see "If our security measures are compromised, or if our platform is subject to attacks that degrade or deny the ability of users to access our content, users may curtail or stop use of our platform" and "We rely upon cloud-based data centers, infrastructure and technologies provided by third parties, and technology systems and electronic networks supplied and managed by third parties, to operate our business, and interruptions or performance problems with these systems, technologies and networks may adversely affect our business and operating results" below. We are in the process of implementing a disaster recovery program, which will allow us to move our platform to a back-up data center in the event of a catastrophe. Although this program is partially functional, it does not provide a real time back-up data center, so if our primary data center shuts down, there will be a period of time that our platform will remain unavailable while the transition to the back-up data center takes place.

We calculate and track performance metrics with internal tools, which are not independently verified by any third-party. While we believe our metrics are reasonable estimates of our user or supplier base for the applicable period of measurement, the methodologies used to measure these metrics require significant judgment and may be susceptible to algorithm or other technical errors. For example, user accounts are based on email addresses, and a user could use multiple email addresses to establish multiple accounts, and suppliers may have multiple accounts. As a result, the data we report may not be accurate. Our internal tools and processes we use to identify multiple accounts or fraudulent accounts have a number of limitations, and our methodologies for tracking key metrics may change over time, which could result in unexpected changes to our metrics, including historical metrics. For more information regarding such metrics, see "Leafly's Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Key Metrics" and "Leafly's Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Other Metrics." Our ability to recalculate our historical metrics may be impacted by data limitations or other factors that require us to apply different methodologies for such adjustments and we generally do not intend to update previously disclosed metrics for any such changes. Though we regularly review our processes for calculating metrics and may adjust our processes for calculating metrics to improve their accuracy, limitations or errors with respect to how we measure data (or the data that we measure) may affect our understanding of certain details of our business, which could affect our longer term strategies. If our performance metrics are not accurate representations of our business, user or supplier base, or traffic levels; if we discover material inaccuracies in our metrics; or if the metrics we rely on to track our performance do not provide an accurate measurement of our business, user or supplier base or traffic levels, we may not be able to effectively implement our business strategy, our reputation may be harmed, and our operating and financial results could be adversely affected. Our suppliers and investors rely on our key metrics as a representation of our performance. If these third parties do not perceive our user metrics to be accurate representations of our user base or user engagement, or if we discover material inaccuracies in our user metrics, our investors could bring lawsuits against us, our reputation may be harmed and retailers may be less willing to list a business on our platform, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

From time to time, other companies copy information from our platform, through website scraping, robots or other means, and publish or aggregate it with other information for their own benefit. While we aggressively enforce our copyrights, we have no assurance that other companies will not copy, publish or aggregate content from our platform. We may not be able to detect such third party conduct in a timely manner and, even if we could, we may not be able to prevent it. In some cases, particularly in the case of websites operating outside of the United States and Canada, our available remedies may be inadequate to protect us against such practices due to a variety of potential issues, including uncertain common law protections, jurisdictional issues, lack of adequate remedies under applicable law and difficulty in identifying potential defendants. In addition, we may be required to expend significant financial or other resources to successfully enforce our rights. When third parties copy, publish, or aggregate content from our platform, it makes them more competitive, and decreases the likelihood that consumers will visit our website or use our mobile application to find the information they seek, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We update our platform on a frequent basis. Despite efforts to test our updates, we have discovered and expect we will continue to discover errors, failures and bugs in our platform and anticipate that certain of these errors, failures and bugs will only be discovered and remediated after deployment to suppliers. Real or perceived errors, failures or bugs in our platform could result in negative publicity, security incidents, such as data breaches, government inquiries, loss of or delay in market acceptance of our platform, loss of competitive position, or claims by suppliers for losses sustained by them. In such an event, we may be required, or may choose, for supplier relations or other reasons, to expend additional resources in order to help correct the problem. We implement bug fixes and upgrades as part of our regular system maintenance, which may lead to system downtime. Even if we are able to implement the bug fixes and upgrades in a timely manner, any history of inaccuracies in the data we collect for our suppliers, or unauthorized access or damage to, or the loss, acquisition, or inadvertent release or exposure of confidential or other sensitive data could cause our reputation to be harmed and result in claims against us, and cannabis businesses may elect not to purchase our products or, in the case of existing suppliers, renew their agreements with us or we may incur increased insurance costs. The costs associated with any material defects or errors in our software or other performance problems may be substantial and could harm our operating results and growth prospects.

Our mobile applications, including mobile web-based access, represents a significant portion of our user traffic. If we fail to deliver compelling platform features and services or effective advertising solutions, our business may suffer. We have experienced challenges with Apple's AppStore and Google's Play Store with regard to the implementation of certain features in our iOS and Android applications, respectively. Historically, Apple did not permit us to deploy our "Pickup" online order reservation features to users based in the United States, although Apple now allows consumers to pre-order through iOS applications. Apple has on occasion rejected application updates for various reasons, including the claimed basis that digital advertising for cannabis violates their Terms of Service. When necessary, we have implemented workarounds, including directing users to mobile web applications; however, these solutions are suboptimal, can be frustrating to users, and could hinder awareness or adoption of platform features or services which are important to our future growth. If we experience difficulties in the future in integrating our mobile application into mobile devices or if problems arise with our relationships with providers of mobile operating systems or mobile application download stores, such as those of Apple or Google, or if our applications receive unfavorable treatment compared to the promotion and placement of competing applications, such as the order of our products in the Apple AppStore or the Google Play app store, or if we face increased costs to distribute our mobile application, our future growth and our results of operations could suffer.

Our success depends in part on our ability to attract users through unpaid internet search results on search engines like Google, Yahoo! and Bing. In total, search engines accounted for approximately 77% of the sessions on our platform during 2021. The number of users we attract to our website from search engines is due in large part to how and where our website ranks in unpaid search results. These rankings can be affected by a number of factors, many of which are not in our direct control, and they may change frequently. For example, a search engine may change its ranking algorithms, methodologies or design layouts. As a result, links to our website may not be prominent enough to drive traffic to our website, and we may not be in a position to influence the results. In some instances, search engine companies may change these rankings in order to promote their own competing services or platform features or the services or platform features of one or more of our competitors. Our website has experienced fluctuations in search result rankings in the past, and we anticipate fluctuations in the future. Any reduction in the number of users directed to our website could adversely impact our business and results of operations, particularly if our competitors are permitted to engage in paid promotion. Google in particular is the most significant source of traffic to our website accounting for more than 75% of the search engine-generated sessions on our platform in 2021. Since Google does not allow us to engage in paid promotion of our website, we rely on organic prominence. Our success depends in part on our ability to maintain a prominent presence in search results for queries regarding local businesses on Google. Given the large volume of traffic to our website and the importance of the placement and display of results of a user's search, the continued inability to engage in paid promotion could have a substantial negative effect on our business and results of operations. Our ability to place digital advertisements for the Leafly platform is constrained because certain large digital ad networks, such as those owned or operated by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Twitter, do not allow us to advertise. As a result, we are limited to digital ad placements on independently owned websites, such as certain local news websites. Additionally, visits to Leafly could also decline if our accounts on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter are shut down or restricted. We work across these social networks to increase brand awareness of our company by consumers and suppliers, and to promote the acquisition of brand and retailer clients. Our engagement on these social media platforms is subject to their respective terms of service and community guidelines, which generally restrict the promotion, sale and, often, depiction of cannabis. While we do not promote the sale of cannabis or cannabis-related products by our suppliers on these social media platforms, the perception that we may be engaging in such promotion or our inadvertent violation of other aspects of these platforms' terms of service or community guidelines may result in our accounts being shut down or restricted. Any such suspension or restriction could result in reduced traffic to our website and diminished demand for our services, which could adversely affect our business and operating results.

We use our sales team to build relationships with our supplier base. Our sales team builds and maintains relationships with suppliers primarily through phone and email contact, which is designed to allow us to cost-effectively service a large number of suppliers. We may need to employ more resource-intensive sales methods, such as increasing our enterprise or field sales teams, to continue to attract and retain brand and retailer clients, particularly as we increase the number of our brand and retailer clients and our supplier base employs more sophisticated marketing operations, strategies and processes. This could cause us to incur higher sales and marketing expenses, which could adversely affect our business and operating results.

Although we do not grow or sell cannabis products, our general connection with the cannabis industry may hamper our efforts to do business or establish collaborative relationships with others that may fear disruption or increased regulatory scrutiny of their own activities. We are dependent on the banking industry to support the financial functions of our services and advertising solutions. Our business operating functions including payroll for our employees, real estate leases, and other expenses are handled reliant on traditional banking. Additionally, many of our suppliers pay us via wire transfer to our bank accounts, or via checks that we deposit into our banks. We require access to banking services for both us and our suppliers to receive payments in a timely manner. Lastly, to the extent we rely on any lines of credit, these could be affected by our relationships with financial institutions and could be jeopardized if we lose access to a bank account. Important components of our offerings depend on supplier accounts and relationships, which in turn depend on banking functions. Most federal and federally-insured state banks currently do not serve businesses that grow and sell cannabis products on the stated ground that growing and selling cannabis is illegal under federal law, even though the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN"), issued guidelines to banks in February 2014 that clarified how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis-related businesses, consistent with financial institutions' obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. While the federal government has generally not initiated financial crimes prosecutions against state-law compliant cannabis companies or their vendors, the government has the ability to do so, at minimum against companies in the adult-use markets. The continued uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities and the subsequent risks this uncertainty presents to financial institutions may result in their discontinuing services to the cannabis industry or limit their ability to provide services to the cannabis industry or ancillary businesses providing services to the cannabis industry. As a result of federal-level illegality and the risk that providing services to state-licensed cannabis businesses poses to banks, cannabis-related businesses face difficulties accessing banks that will provide services to them. When cannabis businesses are able to find a bank that will provide services, they face extensive client due diligence in light of complex state regulatory requirements and guidance from FinCEN, and these reviews may be time-consuming and costly, potentially creating additional barriers to financial services for, and imposing additional compliance requirements on, us and our suppliers. FinCEN requires a party in trade or business to file with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS"), a Form 8300 report within 15 days of receiving a cash payment of over $10,000. While we receive very few cash payments for the products we sell, if we fail to comply with these laws and regulations, the imposition of a substantial penalty could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We cannot ensure that our strategies and techniques for designing our platform features and services, including our advertising solutions, for our suppliers will operate effectively and efficiently and not be adversely impacted by any refusal or reluctance of banks to serve businesses that grow and sell cannabis products. A change in banking regulations or a change in the position of the banking industry that permits banks to serve businesses that grow and sell cannabis products may increase competition for us, facilitate new entrants into the industry offering platform features and services similar to those that we offer, or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations. Also, the inability of potential suppliers in our target market to open accounts and otherwise use the services of banks or other financial institutions may make it difficult for us to conduct business, including receiving payments in a timely manner. We do not sell cannabis, or products that contain cannabis; accordingly, our company is not part of the cannabis industry that would be restricted from using federal and federally insured banks. However, because our revenue is generated largely from companies licensed as operators in the cannabis industry, banks have and may continue to consider us to be part of the cannabis industry that is subject to banking restrictions. If we were to lose any of our banking relationships or fail to secure additional banking relationships in the future, we could experience difficulty and incur increased costs in the administration of our business, paying our employees, accepting payments from suppliers, each of which may adversely affect our reputation or results of operations. Additionally, the closure of many or one of our bank accounts due to a bank's reluctance to provide services to a business working with state legal cannabis businesses would require significant management attention from us and could materially adversely affect our business and operations. In addition to banks and financial institutions, merchant processors may take a similar view of the risks of working with us since we provide services to cannabis businesses, and loss of any of our merchant processor relationships could have similar results. Moreover, Visa reportedly prohibits processing of transactions involving cannabis on its network, and Mastercard has reportedly stated that it is evaluating the inconsistency between U.S. state and federal cannabis law. Although U.S. consumers cannot purchase products on our listings marketplace and we do not currently use, nor have we historically used, any of our merchant processing relationships to process payments for cannabis transactions, to the extent Visa or Mastercard extend these restrictions to cannabis-related businesses, our merchant processing relationships could be terminated, or we could be prevented from processing any Visa or Mastercard transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We have developed a strong brand that we believe has contributed significantly to the success of our business. Maintaining, protecting and enhancing the "Leafly" brand is critical to expanding our base of users, suppliers and partners and increasing their engagement with our solutions, and will depend largely on our ability to maintain consumer trust in our service offerings and in the quality and integrity of the user content and other information found on our website and mobile application. Other factors affecting our brand recognition and reputation that we have the ability to influence include the following: - the efficacy of our marketing efforts;- our ability to maintain a high-quality, innovative, and error- and bug-free platform;- our ability to maintain high satisfaction among suppliers and consumers;- the quality and perceived value of our platform;- successfully implementing and developing new features, including alternative revenue streams;- our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce trademarks and other indicia of origin that are valuable to our brand;- our ability to successfully differentiate our platform from competitors' products;- our compliance with laws and regulations, including those applicable to any political action committees that we support and to any lobbying activities we undertake;- our ability to provide support to our customers and suppliers; and - any actual or perceived data breach or data loss, or misuse or perceived misuse of our platform. In addition, our brand recognition and reputation may be affected by factors that are outside our control, such as: - actions of competitors or other third parties;- the quality and timeliness of our suppliers' order processing businesses;- consumers' experiences with suppliers or products identified through our platform;- positive or negative publicity, including with respect to events or activities attributed to us, our employees, partners or others associated with any of these parties;- interruptions, delays or cyber-attacks on our platform; and - litigation or regulatory developments. Damage to our reputation and loss of brand equity from one or more of the factors listed above may reduce demand for our platform and have an adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. Moreover, any attempts to rebuild our reputation and restore the value of our brand may be costly and time-consuming, and such efforts may not ultimately be successful.

In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, substantially all of our revenue was generated by (a) the sale of advertising solutions, and (b) subscription listing fees. Our ability to grow our business depends on our ability to maintain and expand our brand and retailer client base. To do so, we must convince prospective advertising partners of the benefits of our advertising solutions, including providing additional information and context to those prospective advertisers who may not be familiar with our solutions (such as those in new markets). We must also convince existing and prospective advertising partners alike that our advertising solutions work to their benefit. Additionally, our policy to decline acceptance of advertising or listings from companies that cannot demonstrate proper licensure may cause us to limit our advertising base and forgo certain revenue opportunities. Failure to maintain and expand our advertising partner base could harm our business. Our advertising partners do not typically have long-term obligations to purchase our services. In addition, we rely heavily on the purchase of advertising solutions by small and medium-sized local businesses, which have historically experienced high failure rates and often have limited advertising budgets. As a result, we may experience attrition in our advertising partners in the ordinary course of business resulting from several factors, including losses to lower priced competitors, perceptions that our advertising solutions are unnecessary or ineffective, decline in advertising budgets, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, closures and bankruptcies. We must continually add new advertising partners both to replace advertisers who choose not to renew their advertising, go out of business or otherwise fail to fulfill their advertising contracts with us, and to grow our business. Our advertising partners' decisions to renew depend on a number of factors, including the degree of satisfaction with our services and their ability to continue their operations and spending levels. The ratings and reviews that our suppliers receive from our users, may also affect advertising decisions by current and prospective advertising partners. For instance, favorable ratings and reviews, on the one hand, could be perceived as obviating the need to advertise, and unfavorable ratings and reviews, on the other hand, could discourage businesses from advertising to an audience they perceive as hostile or cause them to form a negative opinion of our products and user base, which could discourage them from doing business with us. Furthermore, our internal teams may take down a supplier's information if it breaches our listing restrictions, which may also affect advertising decisions by current and prospective advertising partners. In addition, the growth rates for new consumers, number of paying suppliers and monthly revenue per suppliers have at times slowed and may similarly slow in the future, even if we continue to add clients and consumers on an absolute basis. If our advertising partners increase their rates of non-renewal, if we experience significant advertising partner attrition or contract breach, or if we are unable to attract new advertising partners in numbers greater than the number of advertising partners that we lose, our client base will decrease and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

We have engaged third-party service providers to perform credit and debit card processing services for supplier's payments to us. If these service providers do not perform adequately or if our relationships with these service providers were to terminate, our ability to process payments could be adversely affected and our business could be harmed. Additionally, some of our suppliers use similar third-party providers for processing services. If these service providers do not perform adequately or if the relationships of our suppliers with these service providers were to terminate the ability of our suppliers to process payments could be adversely affected and our business could be harmed. The laws and regulations related to payments are complex and are potentially affected by tensions between federal and state treatment of the cannabis and other industries. These laws and regulations also vary across different jurisdictions in the United States, Canada and globally. As a result, we are required to spend significant time and effort to comply with those laws and regulations. Any failure or claim of our failure to comply, or any failure by our third-party service providers to comply, could cost us substantial resources, could result in liabilities, or could force us to stop offering our suppliers the ability to pay with credit cards, debit cards and bank transfers. As we expand the availability of these payment methods or offer new payment methods to our suppliers in the future, we may become subject to additional regulations and compliance requirements. Due to the constantly evolving and complex laws and regulations applicable to our industry, third-party merchant banks and third-party payment processors may consider our business a high risk. This could cause a third party to discontinue its services to us, and we may not be able to find a suitable replacement. If this were to occur, we would need to collect from our suppliers using less efficient methods, which could adversely impact our collections, revenues and financial performance. Additionally, if a third party were to discontinue its services to us or if the applicable laws and regulations were to evolve in a way that impacted us negatively, we may not be able to realize our plans of expanding our business offerings, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and our plans for expansion. For more information, see "- Additional Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry - Leafly's operations may be negatively affected by the way other private companies interpret laws and regulations applicable to the cannabis industry, or their policies and practices with respect to the cannabis industry," "- We are dependent on our banking relations, and we may have difficulty accessing or consistently maintaining banking or other financial services due to our connection with the cannabis industry" and "- Risks Related to Leafly's Business and Industry - We are subject to governmental laws, regulations and other legal obligations, particularly related to privacy, data protection and information security, and any actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could harm our business" below. Further, through our agreement with our third-party credit card processors, we are subject to payment card association operating rules and certification requirements, including restrictions on product mix and the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard ("PCI-DSS"). We are also subject to rules governing electronic funds transfers. Any change in these rules and requirements could make it difficult or impossible for us to comply. Additionally, any data breach or failure to hold certain information in accordance with PCI-DSS may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We offer features and services on our platform to support our suppliers' compliance with certain regulations and other legal requirements applicable to the cannabis industry, such as (a) collecting medical marijuana cardholder information to assist dispensaries with their verification obligations, (b) age-gating in accordance with applicable state regulations, (c) reviewing cannabis license information for operational cannabis suppliers, both on submission and on a periodic ongoing basis, to ensure validity and accuracy and (d) requiring operational cannabis suppliers, including storefronts and delivery services, to provide a valid, unexpired state-issued license number before accepting their listings or advertisements on our platform. However, we generally do not, and cannot, ensure that our suppliers will conduct their business activities in a manner compliant with such regulations and requirements, in whole or in part. Their legal noncompliance could result in regulatory and even criminal actions against them, which could result in a material adverse impact on our business and operating results or financial condition, and as a result, our investors could lose their entire investment. For additional information, see the other risk factors in this subsection entitled "- Risks Related to Leafly's Business and Industry," including "- Some of our suppliers or their listings currently and in the future may not be in compliance with licensing and related requirements under applicable laws and regulations. Allowing unlicensed or noncompliant businesses to access our products, or allowing businesses to use our solutions in a noncompliant manner, may subject us to legal or regulatory enforcement and negative publicity, which could adversely impact our business, operating results, financial condition, brand and reputation. In addition, allowing businesses who engage in false or deceptive advertising practices to use our solutions may subject us to negative publicity, which could have similar adverse impacts on us." Additionally, please see the subsection entitled "- Additional Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry."