Arizona Federal Court Accepts Lawsuit Accusing Smoore of Market Monopoly and Price Manipulation. An Arizona federal court has accepted a class action lawsuit against Chinese vape manufacturer Smoore and its U.S. distributors, alleging that the company has monopolized the U.S. cannabis vape market through price manipulation, market segmentation, and anti-competitive behavior. This is the second major antitrust accusation against Smoore this year—and the first to directly target consumers, who are said to have paid inflated prices due to the alleged monopolistic practices
The suit, filed under case number 2:25-cv-02259, is represented by attorney Cristina Perez Hesano of the Perez Law Group PLLC. It seeks damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and 31 state laws, with a focus on the impact on consumers.
Smoore’s Dominance and Alleged Monopolistic Behavior
According to the complaint, Smoore’s CCELL brand is responsible for manufacturing up to 80% of the closed cannabis oil vape devices in the United States. The company is accused of using its dominant market position to force distributors to adhere to strict pricing controls, prohibiting them from selling competing products and sharing confidential pricing data.
The lawsuit claims that Smoore engaged in a decade-long conspiracy with its distributors—including Jupiter Research LLC, CB Solutions LLC, and Greenlane Holdings Inc.—to set prices, divide markets, and suppress competition. Distributors were reportedly required to pay a $500,000 deposit to ensure compliance with these agreements, which could be withheld if the terms were violated.
Anti-Competitive Tactics and Consumer Impact
The class action argues that the alleged anti-competitive behavior has resulted in significantly higher prices for consumers. According to the plaintiffs, the monopoly led to a lack of competition and fewer choices for buyers, while the distributors were effectively trapped into the scheme to maintain access to Smoore’s popular products.
“This is not just about corporate profits—it’s about consumer harm,” said Hesano. “When a company holds such a dominant position and uses it to manipulate the market, it’s not only illegal; it’s a disservice to the public.”
Legal Precedent and Similar Cases
This is not the first time Smoore has faced antitrust allegations. In late 2024, a separate lawsuit was filed in California by an Arizona-based marijuana retailer, claiming that Smoore’s actions harmed their business. That case focused on the economic impact on retailers, whereas the current suit is centered on consumer harm.
Both cases allege that Smoore and its distributors engaged in a “horizontal price manipulation” strategy. The complaint describes a coordinated effort to suppress market competition by ensuring that no distributor undercut the other, effectively creating a cartel-like structure.
Smoore’s Response and Legal Strategy
At the time of publication, Smoore had not issued a public statement or response to the lawsuit. The company’s legal team has not been identified, and no official comments have been released.
However, industry analysts note that this case could mark a turning point in how U.S. regulators and courts view foreign companies operating in the highly regulated cannabis sector.
Implications for the Cannabis Vape Market
The cannabis vape industry has seen rapid growth in recent years, but it has also been prone to regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges. This lawsuit could signal increased regulatory attention to foreign manufacturers and their role in shaping U.S. markets.
If the allegations are proven, Smoore could face substantial financial penalties and be forced to change its business practices. The case may also encourage other states and consumer groups to file similar actions, potentially reshaping the landscape of the cannabis vape industry.
Next Steps
The court has yet to set a trial date, and the case is still in its early stages. However, the fact that it has been accepted by the court indicates the seriousness of the allegations. The case could also set a legal precedent for how antitrust laws are applied to the cannabis industry—a sector that is often at the intersection of federal and state law.
As the case unfolds, the public will be watching closely to see whether Smoore’s dominance in the vape market is being challenged—and, if so, how that challenge could influence the future of the industry.
