Curaleaf, Trulieve, Green Thumb: The MSOs Named in the Ohio Cartel Suit

The Ohio AG named names. Specific companies. Publicly traded. Listed on Canadian exchanges. With investor decks, board members, lobbyists, and audited financials. Nine of them, in a single complaint, accused of conspiring to fix prices and allocate markets in ways that any antitrust attorney would recognize as cartel conduct in any other industry.

For investors, employees, regulators, and consumers, the questions are immediate. Who are these companies? What do they actually do? What does their footprint look like? What do you need to know about each one as the litigation moves forward?

This is the file on each defendant.

Ascend Wellness Holdings

Headquarters: New York / New Jersey Public listing: Canadian Securities Exchange (AAWH) Footprint: Operations in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Notable executives: Founded by Abner Kurtin, formerly of Ashvale Inc.

Ascend Wellness has been one of the most public proponents of the MSO litigation strategy challenging federal cannabis policy. CEO Abner Kurtin publicly committed the company to suing the federal government over Section 280E and Controlled Substances Act application to state-legal operations. The company simultaneously withholds substantial federal tax payments pending resolution of that litigation.

The Ohio complaint places Ascend at the center of alleged cross-state reciprocal supply arrangements. The company's multi-state footprint is, structurally, the kind of footprint that would enable the conduct the AG alleges.

Ascend is also one of Innovative Industrial Properties' largest tenants, with leases on roughly 624,000 square feet generating $31.3 million in annual rent. The lease obligations are a significant fixed-cost line that constrains operational flexibility.

Trulieve Cannabis Corp.

Headquarters: Tallahassee, Florida Public listing: Canadian Securities Exchange (TRUL) Footprint: Florida-anchored with operations in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia Notable executives: Co-founded by Kim Rivers, who remains CEO

Trulieve is the dominant force in Florida's medical cannabis market, with the largest store count and revenue share in the state. The company's Florida concentration has historically been both its strength and its strategic vulnerability — Florida medical cannabis revenue funds the company's expansion into other states, but Florida market dynamics drive the bulk of company performance.

In Ohio, Trulieve operates dispensary locations and is named in the AG complaint alongside the other defendants. The complaint's allegations of cross-state reciprocal supply would implicate the company's multi-state footprint and its alleged interactions with the other defendants.

Trulieve is also an IIPR tenant, with leases generating approximately $20 million in annual rent on roughly 740,000 square feet. The company has faced its own operational pressures, including lay-offs and market exits.

Curaleaf Holdings

Headquarters: Connecticut (corporate offices); operates nationally Public listing: Toronto Stock Exchange (CURA) Footprint: One of the largest U.S. footprints, with operations or licenses in roughly 17 states Notable executives: Boris Jordan, founder and chairman, with longstanding roots in Russian and emerging-market private equity

Curaleaf is, by most metrics, the largest U.S. cannabis MSO by revenue and footprint. The company carries the largest cannabis sector debt load and is widely understood to have the largest accumulated unpaid IRS tax balance among the MSOs.

Curaleaf is named in the Ohio cartel complaint and operates Ohio retail and cultivation operations. Curaleaf's scale across multiple states gives the AG's reciprocal supply allegations particular force when applied to the company's interactions with other defendants.

The company is also among Innovative Industrial Properties' largest tenants, with leases generating roughly $21 million in annual rent on approximately 582,000 square feet across eight properties. The lease and debt obligations together constitute a significant claim on Curaleaf's cash flow.

Curaleaf has, like Ascend, publicly committed to litigation challenging federal cannabis tax and scheduling treatment.

Green Thumb Industries

Headquarters: Chicago, Illinois Public listing: Canadian Securities Exchange (GTII) Footprint: Operations in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia Notable executives: Founded and led by Ben Kovler

Green Thumb is widely regarded as one of the better-managed MSOs by financial discipline and operating margin. The company is generally less leveraged than its peers, has been more conservative in expansion bets, and has maintained better operating performance through the industry's downturn.

Green Thumb is named in the Ohio cartel complaint and operates Ohio retail under its RISE Dispensaries banner. The company's strong operating performance and disciplined approach do not insulate it from the AG's allegations — the conduct alleged would not be characterized as poor management but rather as effective coordination among competitors.

Green Thumb is an IIPR tenant with leases totaling roughly $23 million annually across 664,000 square feet. The company's relative balance sheet strength compared to peers means the lease obligations are more manageable but still meaningful.

Cresco Labs

Headquarters: Chicago, Illinois Public listing: Canadian Securities Exchange (CL) Footprint: Operations in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other states Notable executives: Co-founded by Charlie Bachtell, who remains CEO

Cresco built its position on Illinois cannabis dominance and has expanded selectively into other major regulated markets. The company's brand portfolio includes Cresco-branded flower, the Sunnyside dispensary chain, and various edibles and concentrate brands.

Cresco is named in the Ohio cartel complaint. The company operates Ohio retail and has supplier relationships with Ohio operators that the AG complaint would implicate.

The company has, like other MSOs, faced significant operating challenges from price compression in core markets and refinancing pressures on accumulated debt.

Verano Holdings

Headquarters: Chicago, Illinois Public listing: Canadian Securities Exchange (VRNO) Footprint: Operations in approximately 13 states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio Notable executives: Founded by George Archos, who remains CEO

Verano operates the Zen Leaf dispensary chain and a portfolio of cannabis brands across its multi-state footprint. The company has built significant cultivation and processing infrastructure to support its retail.

Verano is named in the Ohio cartel complaint. The company operates Ohio facilities and is alleged to have participated in the same reciprocal supply and information-sharing arrangements that the AG attributes to the other defendants.

Verano carries debt and lease obligations consistent with its peer MSOs, with refinancing pressures comparable to the broader sector.

Glass House Brands

Headquarters: Long Beach, California Public listing: NEO Exchange (GLAS.A.U) Footprint: Primarily California, with greenhouse cultivation as a strategic anchor Notable executives: Co-founded by Kyle Kazan and Graham Farrar

Glass House is the most California-anchored of the named defendants. The company's strategy centers on large-scale greenhouse cultivation in Ventura County, which allows lower-cost production than the indoor cultivation dominant in many MSO footprints.

Glass House is named in the Ohio cartel complaint, which is somewhat structurally surprising given the company's primary California focus. The inclusion suggests either operational ties to Ohio that are not widely publicized or supplier relationships that the AG considers in-scope.

The company has been one of the better-performing public cannabis stocks of recent years, in part because the California-greenhouse model produces unit economics that other MSO models struggle to match.

Schwazze (Medicine Man Technologies)

Headquarters: Denver, Colorado Public listing: OTCQX (SHWZ) Footprint: Colorado-anchored with operations in New Mexico Notable executives: Justin Dye, CEO, with background in retail and consumer goods

Schwazze is a Rocky Mountain regional consolidator that has been less prominent in national MSO discourse than the larger defendants. The company has been actively acquiring cannabis assets in Colorado and adjacent states with a regional rollup strategy.

Schwazze is named in the Ohio cartel complaint, which is notable because the company's primary geographic focus is the Mountain West rather than Ohio. The inclusion suggests the AG sees regional operators participating in the same coordination patterns as the larger national MSOs.

PharmaCann

Headquarters: Chicago, Illinois Public status: Privately held Footprint: Operations in Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Notable executives: Brett Novey, CEO

PharmaCann is the only privately-held company among the nine defendants, and the only one without publicly traded equity. The company has historically been one of the larger private cannabis operators by revenue.

PharmaCann is named in the Ohio cartel complaint and operates Ohio retail and cultivation. The company defaulted on $29 million in annual rent obligations to Innovative Industrial Properties in 2025, signaling acute financial stress alongside the cartel allegations.

The company's privately held status means less public financial information is available compared to the eight other defendants, which complicates analysis of its operational and financial position relative to the litigation.

What All Nine Have in Common

The pattern across the defendant list reveals what the AG sees as the structural problem.

All nine operate multi-state footprints that include Ohio operations.

All nine have significant fixed-cost obligations — debt, leases, or both — that create incentives to coordinate on pricing rather than compete aggressively.

All nine operate at scales that allow centralized planogram management, which provides the operational mechanism for the supply allocation patterns the AG alleges.

All nine have significant lobbying and trade association presence, suggesting interconnected institutional relationships beyond pure commercial dealings.

All nine, with the exception of PharmaCann, are publicly traded entities with disclosure obligations that create paper trails for discovery in the litigation that follows the AG complaint.

What Investors and Stakeholders Should Watch

For each defendant, the litigation creates near-term and long-term considerations.

Near-term: Discovery will produce internal communications, executive testimony, and operational documents that may reveal liability beyond the AG's initial allegations. Stock price impact tends to escalate as discovery proceeds rather than resolving on initial complaint filing.

Settlement dynamics: Multi-defendant antitrust cases often resolve through phased settlements where some defendants settle early at lower amounts while others hold out for trial. The settling defendants typically agree to ongoing conduct restrictions that affect operations.

Cross-state implications: The Ohio complaint signals that the same evidence may support similar actions by AGs in other states. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts AGs are most likely to follow.

Operational restructuring: Defendants may proactively modify operational practices to reduce litigation exposure, including unwinding reciprocal supply arrangements and reducing information-sharing with competitors. These changes can affect competitive positioning.

Federal regulatory attention: The Ohio action increases the likelihood of federal antitrust attention to the cannabis sector, particularly if rescheduling moves cannabis to Schedule III and brings it more squarely into federal commercial regulation.

For each of the nine, the calculus of the next 12–24 months will involve weighing the costs of fighting the litigation against the costs of settlement and operational changes. None of the answers are easy, and the nine companies will likely diverge in their approaches as the case develops.

What is no longer in question is that the Ohio AG has moved this from speculation into formal legal proceeding. The names are on paper. The allegations are specific. The evidence-gathering process is now public. Whatever the cannabis industry was as of February 2026, it is no longer the same after that complaint was filed.

---

Cannabis.exposed maintains a defendant tracker for the Ohio MSO cartel litigation. Subscribe for case updates, court filings, and analysis.

Internal links:

• The MSO Cartel: Inside the Price-Fixing Lawsuit →
• The 12 MSOs That Control American Cannabis →
• The $1.6 Billion the MSOs Owe the IRS →