Ohio AG Accuses Multistate Cannabis Companies of Operating a Cannabis Cartel

By Anthony D. Riley

Ohio Cannabis Live

February 6, 2026

For years, Ohio cannabis consumers have been asking the same questions.

Why are prices still so high?

Why do the same brands dominate dispensary menus?

Why do Ohio growers struggle to get shelf space?

Why does Michigan feel cheaper and more competitive?

This week, the State of Ohio offered an answer.

On February 5, 2026, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a major antitrust lawsuit accusing nine of the largest multistate cannabis operators in Ohio of conspiring to control the market, block competition, and keep prices artificially high.

This is not rumor or industry drama.

It’s a 51-page court filing.

Read it here it is public record it will open in new tab as pdf.

According to the lawsuit, these companies allegedly coordinated through “reciprocal supply” or “trade balance” agreements. In simple terms, one company would agree to buy a set dollar amount of another company’s cannabis in Ohio, while the favor would be returned in another state. These deals were allegedly enforced at the executive level when local buyers fell behind.

The state says these arrangements were not about product quality or consumer demand.

They were about protecting each other’s revenue.

Ohio also alleges these companies agreed on how much dispensary shelf space each other’s brands would receive, in some cases up to 25 percent. Shelf space matters. If a product isn’t on the shelf, consumers can’t buy it. If it can’t sell, Ohio growers don’t survive.

The lawsuit further claims the companies shared confidential, non-public information, including pricing, discounts, promotions, and sales data. In a competitive market, that kind of information is guarded closely. Sharing it removes real competition.

The filing even includes internal emails describing cannabis as “a distribution game” and admitting that some vendors were removed not because consumers disliked them, but because they were not part of the reciprocal purchasing system.

The harm is real.

According to the state, 13 Ohio counties have only MSO-owned dispensaries. In another seven counties, consumers have only one non-MSO option, often forcing people to drive 25 to 45 miles for alternatives.

Ohio also notes that many of the most popular cannabis brands in the state are grown by Ohio operators with no MSO affiliation , yet those brands struggle to reach consumers because shelf access is controlled.

This case comes at a critical moment. Ohio voters legalized adult-use cannabis through Issue 2 with the promise of competition and access. Since then, Senate Bill 56 has consolidated the rules and introduced a future cap on dispensaries.

Ohio is asking the court to permanently stop the alleged conduct and impose fines of up to $500 per day, per company, for every day the behavior occurred.

This lawsuit does not decide guilt. That will happen in court.

But it does explain why Ohio cannabis feels expensive, limited, and corporate-heavy , and why that outcome may not have been accidental.

Now the question shifts to the public.

Do you think Ohio’s cannabis market is truly competitive?

Are prices actually improving?

Are local Ohio businesses getting a fair shot?

If you’re a consumer, patient, budtender, or Ohio grower, share your experience in the comments.

Tag the friend who drives to Michigan and ask them why.

Share this with someone who still thinks Ohio’s prices are “normal.”

Ohio put the allegations on paper.

Now it’s time for the people living with the prices and menus to speak.

About the Author

Anthony D. Riley is the founder of Ohio Cannabis Live, an independent Ohio-based media platform launched in 2019 to provide fact-based coverage of legal cannabis in Ohio. As one of the first patients in Ohio’s medical cannabis program, Riley focuses on consumer education, policy transparency, and industry accountability.