Key Points
- Shenzhen Smoore Technology and distributors Jupiter Research, Greenlane Holdings, 3Win and Canna Brand Solutions are seeking dismissal of the direct purchasers' per se horizontal conspiracy claim.
- Plaintiffs allege that Smoore coordinated minimum wholesale prices, customer allocation and limits on discounting among authorized distributors; the allegations have not been established by the court.
- Smoore argues that the arrangements were vertical distribution practices between a manufacturer and individual distributors, not an automatically unlawful agreement among competitors.
- The litigation forms part of a broader CCELL antitrust MDL; the current motion targets a core claim in the direct-purchaser case rather than seeking dismissal of the entire MDL.
2Firsts
September 14, 2026
According to Law360 on September 10, 2026, Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. and four authorized U.S. distributors of CCELL products have asked a California federal court to permanently dismiss a core antitrust class claim brought by direct purchasers, arguing that the alleged pricing and customer arrangements reflect vertical dealings between a manufacturer and distributors rather than a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy.
The motion was filed on September 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The litigation is part of In re: CCell Closed Cannabis Oil Vaporization Systems and Components Products Antitrust Litigation, case No. 3:25-md-03161, before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.
Plaintiffs Allege Minimum Pricing and Customer Allocation
The current dispute involves a second amended consolidated class action complaint brought by direct purchasers Meridian Partners II LLC and Redbud Roots Inc.
Along with Smoore, the defendants include four authorized CCELL distributors: Jupiter Research LLC, Greenlane Holdings Inc., 3Win Corp. and CB Solutions LLC, which does business as Canna Brand Solutions.
The plaintiffs allege that Smoore used its position in the cannabis vaping hardware market to organize and enforce pricing and customer arrangements among its authorized distributors.
According to the complaint, distributors agreed to minimum wholesale prices, refrained from competing for certain customers and avoided undercutting one another on price. Plaintiffs also allege that Smoore required authorized distributors to sell only CCELL products and barred them from carrying rival vaping products.
The plaintiffs seek to characterize the arrangements as a horizontal agreement among competitors subject to the Sherman Act's per se rule, under which certain forms of price-fixing and customer allocation can be treated as unlawful without a broader inquiry into market effects.
Those allegations have not been established by the court.
Smoore Says Conduct Was Vertical Distribution Management
Smoore and the four distributors dispute that characterization.
In their dismissal motion, the defendants argue that the second amended complaint still describes separate business relationships between Smoore and individual distributors rather than an agreement among the distributors themselves.
They characterize the alleged arrangements as textbook vertical conduct and say the documents cited by the plaintiffs show how Smoore operated its distribution system, not that competing distributors reached a horizontal agreement.
The distinction matters to the antitrust analysis.
Price-fixing or customer-allocation agreements among competitors can fall within the per se rule, while restrictions imposed in vertical manufacturer-distributor relationships generally require a broader assessment of their competitive effects.
The central dispute is therefore whether CCELL's U.S. distribution structure amounted to vertical channel management or whether Smoore coordinated a horizontal agreement among distributors.
2018 Meeting Again Cited by Plaintiffs
The latest complaint also relies on allegations concerning a 2018 meeting involving the defendants as evidence of coordination among distributors.
Smoore and the distributors argue that the meeting allegations had previously been presented to the court and still do not establish a horizontal agreement.
The defendants are also asking the court not to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend the claim.
The court previously dismissed a similar per se horizontal conspiracy claim brought by the direct purchasers. That ruling did not terminate the broader CCELL multidistrict litigation.
Proposed Class Reaches Back to at Least 2016
The proposed direct-purchaser class seeks to represent buyers of unfilled CCELL vaporization systems and components in the United States and its territories from at least December 1, 2016, through the period in which the alleged effects of the purported conspiracy continued.
The plaintiffs seek nationwide relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
The larger MDL also includes similar claims brought by consumers and other indirect purchasers.
The cases were centralized in the Northern District of California for coordinated proceedings and involve allegations concerning CCELL pricing, distribution restrictions, competing products and relationships among market participants.
The September 4 motion therefore does not seek dismissal of the entire MDL. It targets the direct purchasers' renewed per se horizontal conspiracy theory.
CCELL Distribution Practices Face Antitrust Test
CCELL is one of Smoore's major hardware brands serving cannabis-oil vaporization applications.
The litigation places several common channel-management practices under U.S. antitrust scrutiny, including minimum pricing, customer boundaries among authorized distributors and restrictions involving competing products.
The plaintiffs contend that those practices went beyond separate manufacturer-distributor relationships and became a Smoore-coordinated horizontal arrangement among distributors. Smoore is asking the court to treat the conduct as vertical distribution management and dismiss the per se claim.
The court's handling of the second amended complaint and the latest dismissal motion will determine whether the direct purchasers can continue pursuing this part of the case under a horizontal price-fixing and customer-allocation theory.
Follow 2Firsts for timely updates on global tobacco and nicotine industry developments, corporate strategy and market trends.
Cover Image: ccell
