Smoore Faces U.S. Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Monopoly in Cannabis Vape Market
A class action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. federal court in Arizona against Chinese vape manufacturer Smoore and several U.S. distributors, alleging that the company used price fixing, market allocation, and other anti-competitive practices to dominate the U.S. closed cannabis oil vape device market.
The lawsuit claims that Smoore and its distribution partners restricted competition, controlled pricing, and caused consumers to pay higher prices. The case represents the second similar antitrust lawsuit involving Smoore-related allegations filed in the United States this year.
Key Highlights
- Smoore is accused of controlling up to 80% of the U.S. closed cannabis oil vape device market.
- The lawsuit alleges Smoore and distributors engaged in price fixing, market segmentation, and anti-competitive agreements.
- Plaintiffs claim distributors were required to follow minimum pricing rules and avoid selling competing products.
- The complaint alleges distributors shared pricing data and customer information and were required to provide a $500,000 bond.
- The lawsuit seeks damages under U.S. antitrust laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Act.
- The case was filed in Arizona federal court as Case No. 2:25-cv-02259.
Smoore Accused of Controlling U.S. Cannabis Vape Device Market
According to Law360, the lawsuit was filed on June 28 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd. and Smoore International Holdings Ltd., the companies behind cannabis vape brand CCELL.
The complaint alleges that Smoore developed a dominant position in the U.S. closed cannabis oil vape hardware market through agreements with distributors and restrictions on competition.
According to the lawsuit, Smoore manufactures up to 80% of closed cannabis oil vape devices sold in the United States and supplies products directly to marijuana producers and wholesale distributors.
The plaintiffs claim that Smoore’s market position allowed the company to influence pricing and distribution practices throughout the industry.
Lawsuit Claims Smoore Used Price Fixing and Market Allocation Practices
The complaint alleges that Smoore and distributor defendants engaged in a long-running anti-competitive scheme involving:
- Minimum pricing requirements;
- Restrictions on selling competing products;
- Market allocation agreements;
- Exclusive dealing arrangements;
- Sharing of confidential pricing and customer information.
The lawsuit claims these practices prevented distributors from competing freely and contributed to higher prices for cannabis vape products.
The complaint states that distributors faced pressure to participate in the alleged arrangement because losing access to Smoore products could significantly affect their businesses.
Distributors Allegedly Required to Follow Pricing Rules and Provide Bonds
The lawsuit alleges that Smoore required distributors to provide monthly confidential information, including pricing data and customer identities.
According to the complaint, distributors agreed not to compete for each other’s customers and were prohibited from offering CCELL products below agreed pricing levels.
The lawsuit further alleges that distributors were required to provide a $500,000 bond as a guarantee of compliance. Plaintiffs claim Smoore could deduct funds from the bond if it determined that a distributor violated the alleged agreement.
Named distributor defendants include:
- Jupiter Research LLC;
- CB Solutions LLC (also known as Canna Brand Solutions);
- Greenlane Holdings Inc.
The complaint states that these companies helped expand Smoore’s market position while allegedly being limited by the company’s control over supply.
Plaintiffs Seek Damages Under U.S. Antitrust Laws
The class action lawsuit seeks compensation for consumers who allegedly paid higher prices because of Smoore’s market practices.
The plaintiffs are pursuing claims under:
- The Sherman Antitrust Act;
- The Clayton Antitrust Act;
- Antitrust and consumer protection laws in 31 U.S. states and territories.
Unlike a previous lawsuit filed in California federal court, which involved a marijuana retailer seeking damages as an allegedly harmed business, the Arizona case focuses partly on consumer losses caused by alleged monopoly pricing.
Second Major Antitrust Case Involving Smoore Allegations in 2025
The Arizona lawsuit follows another case filed earlier in California involving similar allegations against Smoore and related distributors.
Both lawsuits claim that Smoore and its partners used market control strategies to limit competition in the cannabis vape hardware sector.
The Arizona complaint alleges that the alleged conduct continued for nearly a decade and involved coordinated efforts to prevent distributors from competing against each other.
Smoore Has Not Publicly Responded to Allegations
The companies named in the lawsuit had not provided public comments at the time of reporting.
The complaint was filed as Case No. 2:25-cv-02259 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
The case is represented by Cristina Perez Hesano of Perez Law Group PLLC.
Lawsuit Could Increase Scrutiny of Cannabis Vape Supply Chains
The lawsuit highlights growing regulatory and legal scrutiny surrounding the cannabis vape hardware supply chain in the United States.
For manufacturers and distributors operating in the vape sector, the case raises broader questions about:
- Market concentration among hardware suppliers;
- Distributor relationships;
- Pricing agreements;
- Competition practices;
- Transparency within global vape supply chains.
If the allegations move forward, the case could have implications for how cannabis vape manufacturers structure distribution agreements and manage pricing strategies in the U.S. market.
