COLUMBUS – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit accusing nine of the nation’s largest cannabis companies of operating a coordinated “cartel” designed to control market access and suppress competition.
The lawsuit, filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, alleges the companies violated Ohio’s Valentine Act — the state’s primary antitrust law — by working together to dominate retail shelf space and restrict opportunities for independent cannabis producers.
The case could become one of the most closely watched legal battles in the U.S. marijuana industry, where rapid consolidation has created a growing divide between large multistate operators and smaller local businesses.
And because several of the companies named in the lawsuit also operate in Michigan — the Midwest’s largest cannabis market — the case could have implications beyond Ohio.
Alleged Scheme To Control Retail Shelves
According to the Ohio Attorney General’s complaint, executives from major multistate operators coordinated agreements that gave preferential retail shelf space to each other’s brands while limiting access for independent producers.
The state alleges the companies used several tactics to reinforce their market power.
Among the practices described in the lawsuit:
• Reciprocal purchasing agreements where companies agreed to stock each other’s products
• Shelf-space allocations in dispensaries that favored other large multistate operators
• Sharing confidential business information, including pricing and promotional strategies
• Preferential supply agreements that gave favorable terms to other major operators
The complaint claims these arrangements helped large operators track competitors’ pricing strategies and maintain influence over retail markets.
State officials argue the alleged coordination reduced competition and made it harder for smaller cannabis businesses to gain access to dispensary shelves.
Ohio Attorney General Yost said the goal of the lawsuit is to restore open competition in the state’s growing cannabis market.
“Our investigation uncovered allegations of an industry-wide scheme designed to push small Ohio businesses out of the market,” Yost said when announcing the lawsuit.
Whistleblower Tip Triggered Investigation
The investigation reportedly began after the Attorney General’s office received a whistleblower complaint in October 2024 from someone inside the cannabis industry.
That tip alleged major operators were coordinating shelf-space arrangements across dispensaries.
State investigators say they later uncovered evidence suggesting some companies agreed to prioritize each other’s brands while limiting purchases from independent cultivators.
Ohio legalized adult-use cannabis in 2023, creating one of the newest regulated recreational markets in the Midwest.
The industry has grown rapidly since then, attracting large publicly traded cannabis companies eager to expand their national footprints.
Companies Named In The Lawsuit
The lawsuit names nine major multistate operators that operate across multiple U.S. cannabis markets:
• Ascend Wellness
• Ayr Wellness
• The Cannabist Company
• Cresco Labs
• Curaleaf
• Green Thumb Industries
• Jushi Holdings
• Trulieve Cannabis Corp.
• Verano Holdings
Together, these companies operate hundreds of dispensaries and cultivation facilities across North America.
Many of them also operate in Michigan, where the cannabis market generated more than $3 billion in annual sales in 2025.
That overlap means industry observers in Michigan are watching the Ohio lawsuit closely.
Michigan Market Already Highly Competitive
Michigan’s cannabis market is considered one of the most competitive in the United States, with hundreds of licensed dispensaries and cultivators.
Unlike Ohio’s newer adult-use market, Michigan has experienced years of intense price competition.
Retail marijuana prices in Michigan remain among the lowest in the country, with ounces often selling for less than $60.
By comparison, Ohio prices can still run significantly higher because of tighter supply controls and fewer licensed operators.
Some analysts say those structural differences may explain why Ohio regulators are more concerned about potential market concentration.
If the Ohio case uncovers evidence of coordinated market behavior, regulators in other states could begin taking a closer look at industry practices.
Antitrust Case Could Shape Cannabis Industry
Legal experts say the lawsuit represents one of the first major antitrust challenges targeting multistate cannabis operators.
The cannabis industry has undergone rapid consolidation over the past decade as companies expanded through mergers, acquisitions, and multi-state licensing.
Large operators often pursue vertical integration, controlling cultivation, processing, distribution and retail operations.
Supporters argue vertical integration creates stability in regulated cannabis markets.
Critics say it can also limit access for smaller producers.
If Ohio successfully proves coordinated conduct among major operators, the case could open the door to similar investigations in other states.
Why The “Cannabis Cartel” Case Matters
If the Ohio lawsuit succeeds, it could reshape how cannabis companies operate across the United States.
Potential industry impacts include:
More antitrust scrutiny
Other state attorneys general could investigate cannabis companies for similar behavior.
New rules for dispensary purchasing
Regulators may impose stricter rules governing how dispensaries choose suppliers.
More opportunities for smaller growers
Independent cultivators could gain better access to retail markets.
Investor uncertainty
Public cannabis companies could face new legal risks if coordination between operators becomes a regulatory focus.
For now, the lawsuit remains in its early stages.
The companies named in the complaint have not yet responded in court.
But the case highlights a growing tension in the U.S. cannabis industry between large multistate corporations and smaller local businesses competing for space in one of the fastest-growing regulated markets in North America.
