Ohio AG Sues Nine Cannabis MSOs for Anti-Competitive Conduct

COLUMBUS – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed an antitrust lawsuit against nine major multistate Cannabis operators, accusing them of coordinated anti-competitive practices that limit product variety and sustain higher prices in the state’s adult-use market.

The complaint, lodged in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, names Ascend Wellness, Ayr Wellness, The Cannabist Company, Cresco Labs, Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries, Jushi, Trulieve, and Verano as defendants. Yost alleges these companies violated Ohio’s Valentine Act (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1331) through reciprocal purchasing agreements, the exchange of sensitive competitive information, and distribution practices that favor their own products over those from independent Ohio cultivators and processors.

The action originated from an October 2024 tip by an Ohio Cannabis industry employee, who reported widespread “shelf-space allotments” among large, vertically integrated firms. Investigators found evidence of national-level deals where the operators agreed to prioritize one another’s inventory in dispensaries, particularly as supply increased and prices trended downward elsewhere. This conduct, according to the suit, began with meetings in late 2022 and aimed to protect shelf space amid market pressures, ultimately reducing options for consumers and sidelining smaller local businesses. The state claims these steps stifled competition, innovation, and quality while allowing the defendants to charge above-market rates in Ohio compared to other states.

Yost described the alleged behavior as an “industry-wide scheme designed to push small Ohio businesses out of the market,” emphasizing that state antitrust rules safeguard open competition rather than protect coordinated arrangements. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the practices, along with potential civil penalties.

The case highlights tensions in Ohio’s relatively new adult-use framework, where MSOs hold significant market share but face scrutiny over their influence on pricing and access. Some defendants have issued brief responses denying the claims, though full replies await court proceedings.

As Ohio’s recreational Cannabis market continues to mature, this litigation underscores ongoing debates about balancing large-scale operators’ efficiencies against protections for independent growers and consumer benefits from genuine competition. The outcome could influence how multistate firms structure supply chains and shelf allocations in regulated states nationwide.