Last verified: March 2026
The Lawsuit
On February 5, 2026, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed an antitrust action against nine multi-state operators (MSOs) alleging they operated as a cartel to control pricing, shelf space, and market access in Ohio's cannabis industry. The suit was filed under the Valentine Act (ORC Chapter 1331), Ohio's antitrust statute and one of the oldest in the country, dating to 1898.
The Nine MSOs Named
| Company | Ticker |
|---|---|
| Ascend Wellness Holdings | AAWH |
| Ayr Wellness | AYR |
| The Cannabist Company | CBST |
| Cresco Labs | CL |
| Curaleaf Holdings | CURA |
| Green Thumb Industries (GTI) | GTII |
| Jushi Holdings | JUSH |
| Trulieve Cannabis | TRUL |
| Verano Holdings | VRNO |
These nine companies represent the largest MSOs in the United States. Together, they operate a significant share of Ohio's 204 dispensaries and hold substantial cultivation and processing capacity.
The Cartel Allegations
AG Yost's complaint alleges two primary anticompetitive schemes:
- Reciprocal purchase agreements: MSOs allegedly agreed to stock each other's products in their respective dispensaries, creating a closed ecosystem that excluded independent cultivators and processors from retail shelf space
- Shelf-space quotas: The agreements allegedly set minimum percentages of shelf space that each MSO would dedicate to the other defendants' products, effectively squeezing out smaller competitors
The result, the AG alleges, was artificial price maintenance and reduced consumer choice. Independent cultivators and processors found it increasingly difficult to get their products into MSO-controlled dispensaries, even when their products were competitively priced.
The Valentine Act: 1898 Antitrust Law
The lawsuit is brought under Ohio's Valentine Act (ORC Chapter 1331), one of the oldest antitrust statutes in the country. Enacted in 1898 — a decade after the federal Sherman Act — the Valentine Act prohibits combinations in restraint of trade, price-fixing, and market allocation agreements. The law carries civil penalties and allows for injunctive relief.
Using a state antitrust law rather than federal antitrust law is significant because federal enforcement agencies have historically avoided cannabis cases due to the drug's federal scheduling. The Valentine Act allows Ohio to pursue anticompetitive behavior in its cannabis market without relying on federal cooperation.
The Whistleblower Origin
The investigation was triggered by a whistleblower complaint in October 2024. The identity of the whistleblower has not been publicly disclosed, but the complaint reportedly came from within the industry — someone with direct knowledge of the reciprocal agreements and shelf-space practices. The AG's office spent over a year investigating before filing suit.
What Happens Next
The case is in early stages as of March 2026. Key things to watch:
- Discovery: If the case proceeds, discovery could reveal internal communications documenting the alleged agreements
- Settlement pressure: MSOs may seek to settle rather than risk disclosure of internal business practices
- Market impact: Even the filing itself may cause MSOs to unwind existing reciprocal arrangements
- National precedent: This is the first state AG antitrust action against cannabis MSOs and could inspire similar suits in other states
The lawsuit has significant implications for market structure nationwide. If Yost succeeds, it could fundamentally change how MSOs operate across all legal states — not just Ohio.
For in-depth cannabis education, dosing guides, safety information, and research summaries, visit our partner site TryCannabis.org