Three CCELL vape distributors reach settlements in principle with direct purchasers in federal antitrust MDL

Three distributors of cannabis vaporizer hardware have told a US federal judge they have agreed in principle to settle antitrust claims brought by direct purchasers. According to MLex, direct purchasers and Greenlane Holdings, CB Solutions and 3Win Corp. reported settlement agreements in principle over closed cannabis oil vaporizing systems, and asked the court to stay proceedings while they finalize the agreements for approval. MLex published its report on November 9, 2026.

The litigation

The dispute sits in In re: CCell Closed Cannabis Oil Vaporization Systems and Components Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3161, in the Northern District of California. The MDL was established in late 2025 to coordinate multiple class actions involving CCELL vaporization systems and related components. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria presides over it.

The lead direct-purchaser case is Earth's Healing, Inc. v. Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd., No. 3:25-cv-01428. Plaintiff's counsel Hausfeld describes it as a class action against Smoore and its authorized distributors Jupiter Research, Greenlane, 3Win and CB Solutions, alleging a conspiracy to restrain competition in the market for closed cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components.

What the plaintiffs allege

These are allegations, not findings. According to Hausfeld's summary of the complaint, Smoore and its distributors are horizontal competitors at the wholesale level and allegedly agreed not to sell CCELL vapes below set minimum prices or compete for each other's customers. The complaint also alleges the arrangement was enforced through contracts, training programs and in-person meetings. It further alleges that distributors shared confidential customer and pricing information with Smoore monthly, and that Smoore penalized violators by deducting from their security deposits.

A separate consumer complaint makes similar claims. MLex reported that a proposed class of cannabis oil vape consumers filed second amended claims in August 2026, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and describing restraints that included barring distributors from selling non-CCELL vapes. The settlement report refers to direct purchasers, so the consumer claims appear to be a separate track.

The defendants' position

The defendants have contested the claims. Greenlane's quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2025 said the company believes the case is baseless and without merit and is jointly defending it with the other named defendants. The same filing said the company had taken no litigation reserves for the periods reported.

In February 2026, Smoore and the distributor defendants filed motions to dismiss the latest amended complaint. Nicotine Insider reported that the defendants argued they sell empty hardware rather than cannabis-filled products, so consumers are too remote from the alleged hardware market to bring federal antitrust claims. The motions also argued that the complaint fails to identify specific prices at various distribution levels, quantify market shares, or plausibly allege that competition was foreclosed in a defined relevant market.

What is not yet settled

The deals are agreements in principle. The parties still have to finalize them and seek court approval, and in a class case that ordinarily means a judge's review. The three named settling defendants are Greenlane, CB Solutions and 3Win. The MLex summary does not say Smoore or Jupiter Research is part of the settlements, and both appear in the case caption.

What this means for in-house counsel

Companies in a distribution chain should note how this case is framed. The direct-purchaser complaint alleges both a horizontal agreement among distributors and a manufacturer-enforced price floor, and it relies on contracts, training materials and information flows as evidence. Review whether your distributor agreements, sales training and reporting obligations could be read as supporting minimum-price or no-poach understandings. Pay particular attention to security deposits or penalties tied to pricing.

The settlement structure offers a lesson on timing. Defendants in a multi-defendant antitrust MDL can resolve claims separately, and a stay request while terms are papered is a common step. Counsel at companies still litigating should consider how early settlements by co-defendants may affect their own exposure, joint defense arrangements, and any cooperation obligations that come with a settlement. Check joint defense and common-interest agreements for what happens when one party leaves.

Finally, treat disclosure and reserves with care. Greenlane's filing showed no litigation reserves and a merits denial as of late 2025. Public companies with comparable matters should revisit accrual analysis and legal-proceedings disclosure once an agreement in principle is reached, even before approval.