Ohio Sues Cannabis Firms for Price-Fixing
Ohio's Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against nine major multi-state cannabis operators (MSOs), alleging they conspired to fix market prices. The suit raises the possibility of broader antitrust action in the cannabis industry as states grapple with market concentration and consumer costs.
The lawsuit, filed under Ohio's Valentine Act, an antitrust law dating back to 1898, was initiated after a tip from a cannabis industry employee in October 2024. This whistleblower alleged that large, vertically integrated cannabis companies were engaging in "shelf-space allotments" to prioritize each other's products and exclude smaller, independent Ohio-based businesses. At the core of the complaint are "reciprocal purchasing agreements" allegedly negotiated at a national level. For example, one company would agree to buy a certain amount of another's product in Ohio in exchange for a similar purchase in another state, like Massachusetts, effectively locking out local Ohio cultivators who couldn't offer out-of-state placement. The nine multi-state operators (MSOs) named in the suit are Ascend Wellness, Ayr Wellness, The Cannabist Company, Cresco Labs, Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries, Jushi, Trulieve, and Verano. These are some of the largest players in the U.S. cannabis market; for instance, Curaleaf reported $1.34 billion in revenue for 2024, while Trulieve and Green Thumb Industries each surpassed $1 billion. This legal action comes as Ohio consumers face some of the highest cannabis prices in the nation. In January 2026, the average item price in Ohio's market was $30.57, significantly above the national average. One analysis from February 2025 found the average cost of an ounce of marijuana in Ohio was $192.40, more than double the $71.80 average in neighboring Michigan. Beyond alleged reciprocal buying, the lawsuit claims these MSOs shared competitively sensitive information, such as pricing and promotional plans, and offered each other preferential supply terms not available to independent competitors. This alleged coordination is claimed to have stifled innovation and reduced product choice for consumers. This is not the first antitrust action within the growing U.S. cannabis industry. In 2021, a California jury awarded a $5 million verdict (tripled to $15 million) in a case where one company was found to have blocked a competitor from opening. More recently, Connecticut's Attorney General secured a $416,000 settlement with cannabis operators over antitrust violations in January 2026. The Ohio Attorney General is seeking to permanently block the companies from continuing their alleged practices and may seek fines of up to $500 for each day the collusion was in effect. The case could set a significant precedent for how states regulate competition in the increasingly concentrated national cannabis market.
