Ccell was lawsuited of manipulating prices by court in the USA

The Arizona federal court recently accepted a class action lawsuit against Chinese vape factory manufacturer Smoore and its US distributors, accusing them of monopolizing the US cannabis vape market through price manipulation, market segmentation, and other means, resulting in consumers paying higher prices. This is the second similar accusation case this year.

Ccell was lawsuited of manipulating prices by court in the USA key points:
1.Monopoly accusation: Smoore is accused of manufacturing 80% of closed cannabis oil vape devices in the United States and forcing distributors to comply with minimum pricing and prohibit the sale of competitors.
2.Anti competitive behavior: The lawsuit alleges that Smoore conspired with distributors for ten years to share pricing data, divide the market, and collect a $500000 deposit to prevent violations.
3.Legal Basis: The plaintiff seeks compensation for high price losses incurred by consumers due to monopolistic behavior, in accordance with the Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, and 31 state laws.
4.Case progress: Currently, Smoore has not responded,Arizona Federal Court case number 2:25-cv-02259.

The lawsuit states: “Smoore is a monopolist in the manufacturing of products in the US market, producing up to 80% of the closed cannabis oil e-cigarette devices in the US and selling the products directly to cannabis producers and wholesale distributors, including defendant distributors
According to the lawsuit, Smoore is both a supplier of the defendant distributor mentioned in the lawsuit and a competitor, including Jupiter Research LLC, the largest CCELL product distributor in the United States. Although these distributors helped Smoore establish a monopoly position, the lawsuit indicates that they were forced to do so in order to continue obtaining these best-selling products.

The dominant market share of Smoore has left the distributor defendant with two choices: either to participate in Smoore’s anti competitive plan, or to face the consequences of being unable to conduct business with Smoore, which would pose a risk of losing an important supply source that accounts for up to 80% of the closed cannabis oil atomization system market in the United States

This class action lawsuit seeks damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Act, and seeks recovery under antitrust and consumer protection laws in 31 states and territories in the United States.
The claims of this lawsuit are similar to those filed in California federal court, but the earlier lawsuit was filed by an Arizona based marijuana retailer seeking compensation as a monopoly damaged enterprise. The current lawsuit is based on the theory that consumers have to pay higher prices due to the monopolistic behavior, seeking compensation.
The lawsuit claims that this pattern of horizontal price manipulation, market segmentation, and exclusive trading began nearly a decade ago.
According to the complaint, the retailer stated that Smoore and its distributors conspired not to compete with each other’s customers and did not charge customers fees lower than the specific agreed price of CCELL products. These distributor defendants include Jupiter, CB Solutions LLC (Canna Brand Solutions), and Greenlane Holdings Inc., who are also named defendants in the California lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that Smoore requires distributors to share confidential pricing data and customer identities with each other on a monthly basis. All distributors avoid competition with each other. Each distributor is required to pay a deposit of $500000. If Smoore discovers that someone has violated the terms of an illegal agreement, the funds will be deducted from the violator’s deposit.
This class action lawsuit is represented by Cristina Perez Hesano from Perez Law Group PLLC.
Smoore products includes ccell vape cartridge, ccell disposable vape pen, cbe vape, thc vape.
As number one vape factory in China.Smoore’s representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Smoore’s lawyer information has not been released yet.

Reference: Law360