Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Missouri cannabis wholesalers say Good Day Farm-led cartel rigged wholesale purchasing market, (May 7, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Good Day Farm and related entities allegedly used acquisitions, management agreements, and coordinated control of dispensaries to suppress wholesale cannabis prices and exclude independent suppliers.

CPC of Missouri–Smithville LLC and GF Saint Mary LLC has filed suit against Good Day Farm Retail Management LLC and affiliated entities for allegedly orchestrating an unlawful “GDF Cartel” in Missouri’s cannabis market by using investor-backed “verticals,” management agreements, and coordinated control of independently licensed dispensaries to evade state limits on common ownership or control. Plaintiffs, suing on behalf of themselves and similarly situated non-cartel wholesalers, allege that the cartel now controls at least 61 dispensaries operating under multiple brand names and uses that retail power to suppress wholesale prices, exclude independent products, impose reciprocal-purchasing demands, and boycott wholesalers that refuse to comply. The petition asserts violations of Missouri antitrust law and the Missouri Constitution, characterizing the alleged scheme as a buy-side monopoly or monopsony (CPC Of Missouri v. Good Day Farm Retail Management, LLC, No. 2616-CV14550 (Mo. Cir. May 7, 2026)).

GF Saint Mary LLC d/b/a VIBE Cannabis and CPC of Missouri–Smithville LLC d/b/a Local Cannabis, are Missouri cannabis wholesalers with cultivation and manufacturing licenses. The petition alleges that Good Day Farm is Missouri’s largest dispensary-branded chain and that its retail-management entity oversees Good Day Farm-branded retail operations. It lists 16 entities allegedly holding 21 Good Day Farm dispensary licenses, as well as affiliated cultivation and manufacturing entities.

The alleged cartel groups include Codes, described as Missouri’s second-largest dispensary chain, Greenlight, Fresh Karma, and 3Fifteen Primo. These groups allegedly competed horizontally in retail cannabis sales and wholesale purchasing while coordinating through the alleged cartel. The petition also identifies entities allegedly used to acquire, hold, or manage dispensary assets, including Bon Vert Ventures, Missouri Vertical Investments, V-Three Retail Holdings, Good Day Farm Missouri entities, and Fly Route Advisors.

The petition further names individual defendants allegedly connected to Good Day Farm or the vertical entities as officers, investors, managers, directors, or board members, and includes Doe defendants alleged to have joined or furthered the conspiracy.

Unlawful cartel. The petition alleges that Good Day Farm and affiliated or cooperating dispensary entities formed an unlawful “GDF Cartel” to subvert Missouri’s regulated cannabis market. Plaintiffs CPC of Missouri–Smithville and GF Saint Mary, both licensed Missouri cannabis wholesalers, claim Good Day Farm used Missouri’s limited-license structure to restrain competition by bringing nominally independent dispensaries and wholesalers under Good Day Farm management.

According to plaintiffs, Good Day Farm sought to “scale limited license retail” despite the Missouri Constitution’s 10% cap on common ownership, control, or management of dispensary licenses. It allegedly used third-party investors and LLC “verticals” to acquire additional dispensary, cultivation, and processing facilities while entrusting management to Good Day Farm or affiliated managers.

The alleged cartel comprises four verticals controlling at least 61 dispensaries under the Good Day Farm, CODES, Greenlight, Fresh Karma, and 3Fifteen Primo brands. Plaintiffs allege the cartel coordinated to depress prices paid to non-cartel wholesalers, exclude independent products, demand reciprocal purchases from cartel-affiliated suppliers, boycott noncompliant wholesalers, and use collective retail power to suppress competition and increase margins.

Specific mechanisms. The petition further alleges specific mechanisms used to advance the scheme, including quarterly meetings at which non-cartel wholesalers sought to sell products into cartel dispensaries; coordinated “FILL or KILL” price and quantity demands; requirements that wholesalers absorb retail discounts applied in cartel stores; and “partner scorecards” comparing cartel purchases from a wholesaler against that wholesaler’s purchases from cartel-affiliated suppliers. Plaintiffs contend that this conduct did not benefit consumers, citing an alleged Good Day Farm employee statement that the company’s market share helped keep prices “stable” by not lowering them.

The petition characterizes the alleged conduct as a buy-side monopoly or monopsony over the retail channel through which Missouri wholesalers must reach consumers. Because cultivators and processors allegedly cannot sell directly to consumers and must sell through Missouri’s 224 licensed dispensaries, plaintiffs contend that independent wholesalers have little practical choice but to accept the cartel’s terms or lose access to a substantial part of the market. Plaintiffs assert that the alleged price-fixing, product and supplier allocation, and coordinated exclusionary conduct caused lost profits and loss of scale, violated Missouri antitrust law and the Missouri Constitution, and warrants damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

Class action allegations. Plaintiffs define the proposed class as Missouri cannabis wholesalers that have held active cultivation or manufacturing licenses since December 8, 2022, excluding defendants, alleged cartel members, their affiliates, and entities not listed in Schedule A. They allege the class is definite, ascertainable, and limited to no more than 93 legal entities.

The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical because the same alleged cartel conduct injured all class members: wholesale price-fixing, artificial limits on products stocked in cartel dispensaries, requirements that wholesalers absorb retail discounts, boycotts or retaliation against noncompliant wholesalers, and foreclosure from consumer demand through cartel-controlled retail channels. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct caused class members to receive less for their cannabis products than they would have received in a competitive market.

The petition identifies common questions for class treatment, including whether defendants conspired to fix or stabilize wholesale purchase prices, monopolized or attempted to monopolize Missouri wholesale cannabis sales, coordinated purchasing decisions, boycotted wholesalers, suppressed competition, unjustly enriched themselves, and injured class members and competition in Missouri. Plaintiffs allege that these common issues predominate and that their counsel is experienced in cannabis, antitrust, class-action, and unfair-competition litigation.

GDF cartel. Missouri’s adult-use cannabis market is tightly regulated and intrastate, with state law capping common ownership, control, or management at 10% of each license category—no more than 22 dispensaries. Plaintiffs allege that Good Day Farm evaded that limit through affiliated “verticals” and investor-backed entities, extending its practical control beyond its own 21 dispensaries to a 61-store “GDF Cartel” operating under the Good Day Farm, Codes, Greenlight, Fresh Karma, and 3Fifteen Primo brands.

The petition cites Bon Vert’s private placement materials as allegedly showing that investors would nominally own the target dispensaries. At the same time, a Good Day Farm-affiliated manager would control operations, collect management fees and carry interest, require supply agreements, and face potential regulatory scrutiny due to common supervision of too many dispensaries. Plaintiffs also cite corporate filings and business records that allegedly tie Good Day Farm personnel to the Codes, Greenlight, and Fresh Karma entities. They claim the cartel controls more than 25% of Missouri dispensary licenses and more than 40% of wholesale cannabis purchases, creating buy-side market power no single operator could lawfully obtain.

Anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs claim the defendants fixed wholesale purchasing terms by centralizing procurement and demanding higher procurement margins, including “fill or kill” orders and 60% to 65% margins, while retaining those discounts rather than passing them to consumers. They also allege a product-allocation scheme in which cartel dispensaries carried substantially the same products, favored cartel-affiliated brands, reduced purchases from non-cartel wholesalers, and used coordinated purchasing meetings to set prices and product selection.

The petition also alleges unlawful reciprocity and boycott practices. Vertically integrated non-cartel wholesalers allegedly had to buy cartel products to gain access to the cartel’s 60-plus dispensaries, with “partner scorecards” tracking reciprocal purchases through a “fair trade ratio” and “trade gap.” Those who refused the cartel’s price or other demands allegedly risked being barred from selling to the cartel’s dispensaries.

Product market. The relevant product market is the purchase of wholesale cannabis products in Missouri from Missouri-licensed cannabis cultivators and manufacturers. This market includes both ready-for-retail products, such as packaged cannabis flower, vape cartridges, and edibles, and intermediate products, such as bulk cannabis flower, cannabis trim, and bulk cannabis extracts used to create retail-ready products.

The petition alleges that the GDF Cartel has substantial market power because it coordinates purchasing across more than 60 dispensaries in a market where vertical integration leaves fewer retail outlets open to independent wholesalers. Plaintiffs also point to cartel-controlled border stores in Noel and Rockport, which allegedly face limited nearby competition and draw customers from neighboring states without adult-use cannabis sales.

Plaintiffs allege that this power is shown by the cartel’s ability to extract below-market wholesale prices, above-market margins, and supplier-funded discounts. Good Day Farm investor materials allegedly described added dispensaries as creating “procurement leverage,” “gross margin enhancement,” and procurement margins approaching 70%, while increasing dominance and pressuring other retailers to sell.

Antitrust injury. Plaintiffs claim defendants restrained competition in Missouri wholesale cannabis sales by causing dispensaries that should have competed independently to make joint decisions about which products to carry and what prices to pay wholesalers. The petition characterizes those agreements as per se unlawful price-fixing and product-market allocation.

Plaintiffs allege the conduct harmed the market by lowering wholesale prices paid to non-cartel wholesalers, reducing competition, and limiting consumer choice. They claim that about 65% to 70% of products sold in GDF Cartel dispensaries are produced by cartel members, while excluded wholesalers either lose access to those stores or must sell on disadvantageous terms, impairing their ability to scale.

Plaintiffs and class members were paid less than they would have received absent the alleged cartel and face reduced brand diversity, lower product quality, fewer choices, and higher consumer prices. Plaintiffs allege that no procompetitive justification outweighs the harm and seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs under Missouri antitrust law.

Causes of action. Plaintiffs assert Missouri antitrust claims for horizontal price-fixing, product-market allocation, group boycott, conspiracy to monopolize, and exclusive dealing, along with claims for permanent injunctive relief, unfair competition, declaratory relief, and supplemental relief. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare the alleged cartel structure unlawful, void agreements that fix prices, allocate products, impose reciprocal purchasing requirements, or create excessive common control, and require independent procurement and management at cartel-affiliated dispensaries. They also seek restitution and disgorgement of allegedly unlawful profits and benefits.

Prayer for relief. Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the class, declare that the defendants engaged in unlawful anticompetitive and unconstitutional conduct, enter declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, award compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, treble damages, attorney fees and costs, and grant prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

The Case is No. 2616-CV14550

Judge: Not assigned.

Attorneys: K. Lee Marshall (Feuerstein Kulick LLP) for CPC of Missouri.

Companies: CPC of Missouri–Smithville LLC; GF Saint Mary LLC; Good Day Farm Retail Management LLC

News: Antitrust MissouriNews