Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has initiated an antitrust lawsuit against several multistate cannabis companies, alleging they engaged in coordinated practices that limited competition and disadvantaged Ohio businesses and consumers.
According to a statement from Yost’s office, nine large cannabis operators are accused of taking steps to “reduce product choice and keep prices artificially high,” actions the attorney general described as anti-competitive. The lawsuit claims these companies used their influence to shape product availability in dispensaries across the state in ways that favored their own brands while squeezing out smaller, locally owned suppliers.
Per a statement issued by the attorney general’s office, the case originated from a tip submitted in October 2024 by an employee working in Ohio’s cannabis industry. The complaint alleged that major, vertically integrated cannabis companies were participating in widespread “shelf-space allotments” in Ohio and other states. The practice allegedly involved agreements determining which companies’ products would receive prominent placement and consistent purchasing commitments in dispensaries.
Read more: Cannabis Firms Hire Microsoft Antitrust Lawyer to Challenge Federal Pot Ban
According to the lawsuit, the state’s subsequent investigation supported claims that the operators entered into reciprocal purchasing arrangements negotiated at a national level. These agreements allegedly ensured that participating companies prioritized each other’s products in Ohio dispensaries while reducing or altogether cutting purchases from independent Ohio cultivators and processors.
Yost’s office contends that such conduct harmed smaller in-state businesses by limiting their access to retail outlets and diminished consumer choice by narrowing the range of available products. Per a statement from the attorney general, the alleged scheme effectively tilted the market in favor of large, multistate companies at the expense of local competitors.
“Our investigation uncovered allegations of an industry-wide scheme designed to push small Ohio businesses out of the market,” Yost said in a press release announcing the lawsuit. “Ohio’s antitrust laws protect competition and consumers, not backroom deals that rig the system for a select few.”
The lawsuit seeks to hold the companies accountable under Ohio’s antitrust laws, with the attorney general’s office emphasizing that the state’s legal framework is intended to safeguard fair competition and protect consumers from practices that distort the marketplace.
Source: WLWTAntitrust
