Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Ill.: Suit alleging false advertising of cannabis products goes up in smoke, (Mar 17, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The court found the consumer failed to plead actual damages based on a theory of overpayment.

The federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed a lawsuit brought by a consumers alleging that Defendants Revolution Global, LLC, Revolution Global Health, Inc., Revolution Illinois Holdings, LLC, Revolution Core Holdings, LLC, Revolution Ventures, IL, LLC, Revolution Ventures IL II, LLC, Revolution IP Ventures, LLC, and Revolution Cannabis – Delavan, LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Revolution”) unlawfully marketed and sold certain “cannabis-infused products” (“CIPs”). The court found the consumer failed to show actual damages after rejecting the consumer’s theory of overpayment. The court also found the consumer failed to plead his fraud based claims with particularity because he did not allege any misrepresentations that he had relied on when purchasing the product. The consumer was granted leave to amend his complaint (Turek v. Revolution Global, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01842 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2026)).

Background. The defendants manufacture sell cannabis products in Illinois, including “Vapable Oils.” Under Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, there are two general categories of cannabis products that are permitted to be manufactured, packaged, and sold to retail consumers in Illinois: (1) cannabis concentrates, and (2) CIPs.

The consumer, a medical marijuana user, purchased a 0.5- gram (500 milligram) Peach Crescendo disposable vape cartridge for $60 from Cannabist dispensary in Chicago, Illinois. The consumer alleges that, under the CRTA, the product he purchased was a CIP, not a cannabis concentrate, and yet was improperly labelled and marketed as a cannabis concentrate by the manufacturer. The consumer further alleges that he relied on the manufacturers’ representations when deciding to purchase the product and he did not know the Vapable Oil he purchased was actually a CIP that was unsafe and not compliant with Illinois law. The consumer claims that he would not have purchased the product had he known so.

The consumer filed a suit which asserts that cannabis makers’ misrepresentations constituted a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) (Count I); the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”)(Count II); common law fraud (Count III); fraudulent concealment (Count IV); a breach of express warranty (Count V); a breach of implied warranty (Count VI); and unjust enrichment (Count VII). The cannabis makers moved the suit to federal court and now moved to dismiss.

Classification of Products. The court began its analysis by reviewing the manufacturers’ argument that the basis for the suit is erroneous because Vapable Oils are not in fact CIPs under Illinois law but are properly classified as cannabis concentrates. While the court noted it appears this is an issue of first impression involving a novel question of Illinois state law, the court indicated that it need not address this issue given the other grounds for dismissal.

CRTA Private Right of Action. The court next looked at the cannabis companies’ argument that the CRTA does not offer a private right of action, so therefore the claims fail. The court indicated that the consumer did not bring his claims under the CRTA, rather he used the alleged misrepresentations about CRTA compliance as the basis for his claims.

Actual Damages. The court agreed with the cannabis makers that the consumer failed to show he suffered actual damages. The consumer’s damages were based on an “overpayment” theory, arguing that he “would not have purchased these Vapable Oils had [he] known that it was not legal, did not have appropriate warnings and information on the packaging and product, and did not have any dosing instructions.”

The court indicated that here, the consumer does not allege any misrepresentations as to an ingredient or feature of the Vapable Oil he purchased (i.e., he does not say Defendants misstated the amount of THC in the Vapable Oil). Instead, his allegation is that the manufacturers improperly labeled and marketed the Vapable Oil he purchased as concentrate and that he would not have purchased the Vapable Oil had he known it was a CIP. Further, the court found that the consumer has not sufficiently plead facts demonstrating that he paid “more than the actual value of the [product].” The consumer asserted that he would not have bought the Vapable Oil product he purchased if he had known it lacked the “appropriate warnings and information on the packaging and product” and “dosing instructions” required for CIPs under Illinois law. However, the court pointed out that he failed to provide any facts connecting the absence of warning labels or dosing instructions to the value of the Vapable Oil he purchased. The consumer also alleged that the Vapable Oils are substantially less valuable or worthless simply due to their illegality. Again, the court found that he pleaded no facts connecting the alleged CRTA noncompliance to a reduction in the value of the Vapable Oils he purchased. The court dismissed Counts II to VII because the consumer failed to plead actual damages.

UDTPA. The claim alleging violations of the UDTPA was also dismissed given the parties stipulations.

Fraud. The court also dismissed the consumer’s fraud claims. First, the court found that the consumer failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity under Rule 9(b). While the court found that the consumer pleaded fraudulent intent, it found that he did not identify any misrepresentations that he relied upon when making his purchases. The court first found that the consumer plausibly alleged scienter based on a theory that the cannabis makers knowingly mislabeled their products for profit maximization. The consumer’s intent allegations, therefore, satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirements. However, the consumer failed to plead reliance on any affirmative misrepresentation. Although the consumer identified alleged misrepresentations on the companies websites and marketing materials stating that their Vapable Oils are a cannabis concentrate, the consumer fails to allege with particularity that he viewed those websites and marketing materials before making his purchases. The court determined that his ”conclusory, generic allegations of reliance do not withstand Rule 9(b) scrutiny.” As such, the court dismissed Count III.

The cannabis makers’ next argued that the fraud claims fail because the consumer alleges a mistake of law, not fact. The court agreed, finding by asserting that the Vapable Oil he purchased was a CIP and yet was improperly marketed as a cannabis concentrate by is a mistake of law. The court pointed out that whether a cannabis product is properly classified as a cannabis concentrate or a CIP is statutory. The court stressed that the consumer is “charged with knowledge of the law,” as such, he cannot claim to have been deceived by the makers’ classification of their Vapable Oils as cannabis concentrates. The consumer could have read the CRTA to determine if the classification was proper. The court stressed that he cannot now allege fraudulent conduct by cannabis companies based on his failure to do so. The courts dismissed Counts II, III, and IV.

Warranty Claims. The court rejected the consumer’s warranty claims finding a lack of privity. “There is no contractual privity between a manufacturer and a person who buys from an independent dealer.” The court indicated the consumer’s complaint identifies only “ordinary general communications between manufacturers and consumers, not specific, direct communications with [Turek] when [he] made the purchase.” The court dismissed Counts V and VI.

Unjust Enrichment. The court also dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment, after finding that it was based on the same underlying conduct as the other claims.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01842.

Judge: Rowland, M.

Attorneys: Jamie Joseph Ray Holz (Luisi Holz, LLC) for Bo Turek. Bryna Joyce Roth Dahlin (Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP) for Revolution Global, LLC.

Companies: Revolution Global, LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices IllinoisNews