Forget the flowers and chocolates—this February, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost just handed out a summons instead of sweet greetings to nine of its largest cannabis licensees. Invoking the state’s century-old “Valentine Act”, Yost announced he is suing the companies for allegedly forming a “cartel” that prioritized backroom deals over fair market competition.
How We Got Here
In just one year since adult-use legalization, Ohio’s cannabis market has exploded, reaching over $700 million in sales. But according to a bombshell antitrust lawsuit filed by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost last week, that success comes with a hidden price tag for consumers.
Yost said he started this investigation in October 2024 after a tip from an industry whistleblower. The official complaint was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on February 5, 2026. The case is titled State of Ohio v. Ascend Wellness Holdings, Inc., et al. and is assigned case number 26CV001146. You can view or download the full 51-page document directly from the Ohio Attorney General’s website here:
Official Complaint: State of Ohio v. Ascend Wellness et al. (PDF
The lawsuit alleges that instead of competing for your business, nine of the industry’s largest Multi-State Operators (MSOs) formed a secret “cartel” to fix prices, manipulate shelf space, and crush local competition.
The complaint paints a picture of a market where the illusion of choice hides a coordinated scheme. Attorney General Yost claims these companies didn’t enter Ohio to compete; they entered to suppress competition, using “backroom deals” to keep prices artificially high while locking independent growers out of dispensaries.
The Valentine Act
Despite its romantic name, the Valentine Act is actually one of the oldest and toughest antitrust laws in the United States. It was signed into law in 1898 (named after its sponsor, State Senator George Valentine) and predates much of the modern federal oversight we see today. The Valentine Act (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1331) outlaws “trusts.” Specifically, the law prohibits:
- Price-Fixing: Agreements to keep prices high or set a “standard” figure for consumers.
- Restricting Trade: Any “combination of capital, skill, or acts” that prevents competition in the sale or transportation of goods.
- Market Allocation: Competitors agreeing to stay out of each other’s way or carving up the market so they don’t have to compete.
How it differs from Federal Law
The Valentine Act is often described as broader than the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. While federal law often looks at whether a company is a monopoly, the Valentine Act focuses on the conspiracy.
If two or more companies even agree to help each other at the expense of the market, they have violated the Act—even if they haven’t successfully achieved a total monopoly yet.
AG Yost is using the Act to argue that these nine companies formed a “cartel.” According to the complaint, they used three specific tactics that violate the Act:
- Reciprocal Supply Agreements: A “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” system. Company A agrees to stock Company B’s products in Ohio, but only if Company B stocks Company A’s products in Florida or Pennsylvania.
- Shelf-Space Quotas: Setting aside up to 25% of dispensary shelves for “partner” products, effectively “blocking out” independent Ohio licensees.
- Information Sharing: Swapping non-public pricing data and promotional calendars so they wouldn’t accidentally compete with each other on price.
The “Trade Balance” Scheme
At the heart of the lawsuit is an alleged system known as “Trade Balances.” Because federal law prohibits shipping cannabis across state lines, large operators have to build fully independent supply chains in every state they enter. According to the complaint, executives from these rival companies turned this restriction into an opportunity for collusion. They allegedly met quarterly to negotiate “quid pro quo” purchasing quotas—essentially agreeing that “I’ll buy $10,000 of your product in Ohio if you buy $10,000 of mine in Massachusetts”.
These deals effectively rigged the market. The lawsuit cites specific examples, such as an arrangement where executives allegedly coordinated purchasing amounts across different states to ensure their ledgers were balanced, regardless of consumer demand or product quality.
The “Distribution Game”: How Independents Were Squeezed Out
For independent Ohio cultivators who don’t operate in other states, this system created a “retail lock-out.” Without a footprint in places like Illinois or New Jersey to offer as leverage, local growers reportedly found themselves blocked from dispensary shelves. The lawsuit claims that major operators agreed to reserve up to 25% of their shelf space exclusively for each other, leaving little room for local rivals.
The complaint points to a stark email from December 2024 as evidence of this intent. In it, a GTI executive allegedly admitted to the president of The Cannabist Company that they were playing a “distribution game,” explicitly noting that they eliminated vendors who didn’t reciprocate by buying from their wholesale business. The result, according to the Attorney General, is that consumers are denied access to the top-performing local brands simply because those small businesses refused to pay to play.
Price Fixing via Secret Data Swapping
Beyond trading inventory, the lawsuit accuses these companies of improperly swapping sensitive financial data. In a truly competitive market, stores guard their promotional calendars and wholesale costs. However, the Attorney General alleges that certain companies routinely exchanged non-public information about future discounts and sales volumes.
For example, the complaint details an instance where one defendant allegedly signaled its pricing strategy to competitors days in advance, ensuring the “cartel” could coordinate rather than compete. By sharing exactly what they paid independent vendors, the cartel members could effectively stabilize margins and avoid the kind of price wars that would actually benefit Ohio shoppers.
The “No-Win” Scenario for Local Dispensaries
The alleged conspiracy extended to financial bullying as well. The lawsuit claims the defendants offered each other exclusive “frontload discounts” and “vendor credits” to balance their books—perks that were strictly denied to independent dispensaries. This placed non-MSO stores in a “no-win” scenario: either keep prices high and lose customers, or cut prices to match the big chains and destroy their own profit margins. According to the complaint, companies even ran “split co-promotions,” sharing the cost of a 30% discount to undercut rivals without taking the full financial hit themselves.
What Happens Next
The State of Ohio is seeking aggressive penalties to break up these alleged combinations. The lawsuit targets nine specific companies: Ascend Wellness, Ayr Wellness, The Cannabist Company, Cresco Labs, Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries (GTI), Jushi, Trulieve, and Verano. If found liable under the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), each defendant could face a civil forfeiture of $500 per day for every day the conspiracy existed, along with a permanent injunction forcing them to stop these trade practices immediately.
Licensees Respond
MedicateOH reached out for comment to each of the multi-state operators named in the lawsuit. Jushi Holdings has already gone on the record saying they “respectfully disagree” with the allegations and believe the complaint mischaracterizes their business.
As a matter of policy, Cresco Labs does not comment on threatened or active litigation.
Green Thumb Industries “has received the complaint. While we do not comment on the specifics of pending litigation, we intend to vigorously defend against these allegations.”
Ascend Wellness noted they are aware of the complaint filed by the Ohio Attorney General’s office and is prepared to vigorously defend against the allegations. “Our Ohio stores maintain longstanding relationships with local single-state operators, prominently featuring their products on our retail menus and accounting for roughly two-thirds of third-party inventory at our retail stores. We have confidence in a fair and favorable resolution.”
Curaleaf had this response:
“We are aware of a recent complaint filed by the Ohio Attorney General related to alleged violations of the Valentine Act against several licensed cannabis operators in Ohio. While we remain committed to a transparent and collaborative relationship with all state regulators, the current trajectory of this inquiry is both novel and premature.
After months of cooperating with the Attorney General’s inquiry, we are dismayed that a complaint has been filed without any attempt to resolve these differences before taking such dramatic action. True regulatory oversight is best served through meaningful dialogue and a thorough understanding of the industry, rather than high-profile litigation designed for a news cycle.
Curaleaf has invested significantly in Ohio’s economy, creating jobs and providing value-driven, consumer-safety tested cannabis products to medical patients and adult-use consumers. We serve consumers through our own retail locations, as well as our Ohio wholesale relationships, with retailers both large and small. While we will continue to defend our business practices as legitimate, necessary, and pro-competitive, we remain open to a good-faith resolution that acknowledges the unique complexities of this industry.”
The other licensees named in the suit did not provide comment by our story deadline. MedicateOH will follow the story for more details and outcomes. Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss it.
###
