A California jury handed down what has been reported to be the first antitrust jury verdict involving the cannabis industry. As the cannabis industry continues to grow and evolve, cannabis-related antitrust disputes may well increase.
The case, Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. Koziol, et al., Case No. MSC16-01426 (California Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa), involved a dispute between medical marijuana collectives in Richmond, California. Plaintiff Richmond Compassionate Care Collective (“RCCC”) alleged that the defendants, directors of the collective Richmond Patient’s Group (“RPG”), conspired to prevent plaintiff from opening a dispensary by blocking plaintiff’s access to the limited inventory of commercial properties where medical marijuana dispensaries were permitted to operate pursuant to a local ordinance.
Specifically, RCCC contended that the defendants conceived a plan whereby they presented phony leases, letters of intent to lease or purchase, and purchase agreements to landlords with available commercial properties in an effort to “tie [the landlords] up with paper” so as to prevent RCCC from securing a property before its pending permit expired. Defendants likewise went door-to-door to landlords in an attempt to convince landlords not to lease or rent their properties to RCCC, and also demanded non-compete clauses in their own commercial leases to contractually prevent landlords from leasing or renting their properties to RCCC.
RCCC’s lawsuit alleged that defendants’ scheme constituted an unlawful group boycott in violation of California’s Cartwright Act, causing RCCC to suffer millions of dollars in damages. The case went to trial in August 2021 against three owners and directors of RPG: William Koziol, Darrin Parle, and Alexis Parle. On September 23, 2021, the jury returned a verdict against William Koziol and Darrin Parle, awarding $5,000,000 in damages, which will be automatically trebled to $15,000,000. The remaining defendant, Alexis Parle, was found not liable.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Court Dismisses Monopoly Claims Against Tempur Sealy
Oct 18, 2024 by
CPI
Philadelphia City Council Advances Legislation to Tackle Rent Price-Fixing
Oct 17, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Probes Deere for Potential Anti-Competitive Repair Practices
Oct 17, 2024 by
CPI
Britain’s Ofcom to Outline Strict Guidelines for Tackling Illegal Online Content
Oct 17, 2024 by
CPI
EU Considers Expanding Potential Fines for X, Targeting Musk’s Broader Business Empire
Oct 17, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh