Cannabis Lawsuit News: Curaleaf Case and Big Tobacco Parallels

A federal class action filed on May 4, 2026, accuses four of the largest cannabis companies in the United States of marketing recreational marijuana as medicine while hiding what they knew about the health risks, and the plaintiffs’ lawyers are openly comparing the cannabis industry to Big Tobacco in the 1950s and 1960s. The lead case, Murray v. Cresco Labs Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Cresco Labs, Green Thumb Industries, and Verano Holdings.¹ A companion suit filed the same day in the District of Connecticut, Duke v. Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., targets Curaleaf on nearly identical grounds.²

Who Filed the Case and Who It Covers

The Murray complaint runs 320 pages and was brought on behalf of 42 customers across 12 states.¹ The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick Kenneally, a partner at Burke Law Group and a former McHenry County State’s Attorney, along with Jack Franks, a Democratic former Illinois state lawmaker now in private practice.³

One boundary matters up front. Both suits are limited to adult-use, recreational purchases. Products bought under a physician’s prescription or medical order are explicitly carved out.⁴ If you bought cannabis through a state medical program on a doctor’s order, this case is not about you.

What the Companies Are Accused Of

The core allegation is that Cresco, Green Thumb, and Verano marketed recreational cannabis as “safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal” while knowing, or having reason to know, that the products carry serious mental and physical health risks.² According to the complaint, the companies promoted their products as treatments for anxiety, depression, PTSD, insomnia, pain, opioid addiction, and autoimmune disorders. None of those uses have FDA approval.⁵ The complaint cites marketing language such as “best marijuana strains for depression” and claims about the effects of specific cannabinoids and terpenes.⁶

On the other side of the ledger, the suit says the companies downplayed or concealed risks documented in medical research: psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, cardiovascular events including heart attack and stroke, and cannabis-use disorder. The complaint calls the link to psychosis “perhaps the most alarming health risk” the companies failed to disclose.¹²⁵

The Science the Plaintiffs Lean On

The complaint points to a 2025 analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association that reviewed 124 studies and found “insufficient evidence” to support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most medical indications. It also cites the American Psychiatric Association’s position that there is insufficient evidence cannabis effectively treats any psychiatric disorder.¹

The plaintiffs cite a study finding that 67% of dispensary websites make health claims for their products, and research associating daily cannabis use with higher risk of cannabis-use disorder and cardiovascular problems.¹ The FDA has approved a handful of cannabinoid-based medications for narrow uses, including synthetic THC drugs for cancer- and HIV-related appetite loss and a CBD treatment for epilepsy, but the agency has not validated the broad medical claims cannabis retailers make.⁵

The Legal Claims and What Plaintiffs Want

The Murray complaint stacks federal and state law claims across the 12 states where the named plaintiffs bought products.

Federal RICO. The plaintiffs allege the defendants ran a racketeering enterprise involving federally illegal controlled substances, mail fraud, wire fraud, and transactions in criminally derived property. They seek treble damages and rely on the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, which held that RICO permits recovery for economic losses tied to personal injuries involving mislabeled cannabis products.⁴
State consumer fraud. Claims are brought under consumer protection statutes in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia.⁴
Breach of express and implied warranty. The plaintiffs argue the companies created express warranties by marketing products as treatments for depression, anxiety, PTSD, and pain, and breached implied warranties by selling products unfit for their marketed purpose as “wellness aids.”⁴
Negligent misrepresentation. The complaint alleges the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information despite knowledge of serious risks from scientific research and government advisories.²

The suit asks for class certification, disgorgement of profits, and court-ordered mandates requiring proper health warnings on cannabis products.¹ Kenneally has framed the goal not as shutting down dispensaries but as forcing “public education and clear health warnings on labeling, signage, or package inserts.”³

The Connecticut Case Against Curaleaf

The companion case, Duke v. Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (Case No. 3:26-cv-684), was filed the same day in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Curaleaf, Inc. It was brought by 17 named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed multistate class covering Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. Connecticut was chosen because Curaleaf is headquartered in Stamford.⁷

The allegations track Murray closely. The plaintiffs claim Curaleaf marketed its products as cures for insomnia, PTSD, pain, and anxiety while failing to warn about psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, suicidal ideation, cardiovascular events, and cannabis-use disorder. As in Murray, the suit is limited to recreational purchases.⁷

How the Companies Have Responded

Of the four defendants, only Verano Holdings issued a public statement as of mid-2026. Verano said it “strongly disagree[s] with the allegations” and will “defend the matter vigorously.” The company called the litigation “part of a broader litigation campaign” and noted that similar claims against other cannabis operators had been “rejected by courts” earlier in 2026. Verano said it complies with state-mandated labeling, testing, and warning requirements, and pointed to the Department of Justice’s April 2026 medical cannabis rescheduling order as formal federal recognition that cannabis has accepted medical uses.¹

Cresco Labs declined to comment. Green Thumb Industries had not issued a public response as of reporting in May 2026.¹ Kenneally clarified that he was not involved in the earlier dismissed cases Verano referenced.³

Why the Big Tobacco Comparison

The comparison rests on a specific pattern the plaintiffs say they can prove: an industry marketing a product for uses its own internal knowledge did not support, while suppressing evidence of harm. Kenneally has publicly likened the fight to the tobacco battles of the 1950s and 1960s, when cigarette makers marketed their products as safe and even healthful for decades before litigation forced warning labels and disclosure.³

The plaintiffs argue current state-mandated warnings, which generally say cannabis “can impair cognition and may be habit-forming,” are too vague to communicate specific risks like psychosis and schizophrenia.⁵ State advertising rules already draw lines the suit says are being crossed. Among the 20 jurisdictions that have legalized adult-use cannabis, 16 impose advertising restrictions. Six states, Alaska, Illinois, Maine, New York, Oregon, and Washington, outright prohibit therapeutic or curative claims, while seven others require any such claims to be substantiated by scientific evidence.⁸ New York’s Cannabis Law and its implementing regulations specifically ban medical or wellness claims, curative representations, and any suggestion that cannabis is “safe.”⁹

What Happens Next

Both cases are in their earliest stages. No rulings on class certification or on the merits had been reported as of mid-2026. Whether courts accept the tobacco analogy will depend heavily on how they treat the causation arguments and the sufficiency of existing state warnings.¹⁰

The pending federal rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III complicates the picture in two directions. Verano is using the DOJ order as evidence that federal authorities recognize accepted medical uses.¹ But legal observers note that Schedule I status has historically served as an obstacle for plaintiffs in cannabis product liability cases, sometimes limiting standing or contract enforceability. Moving to Schedule III would weaken those defenses and likely raise industry obligations around product safety. Canada saw an increase in cannabis product liability litigation after its regulatory framework matured, and a similar pattern may follow in the United States.¹⁰

If you bought recreational cannabis from Cresco Labs, Green Thumb Industries, Verano Holdings, or Curaleaf in one of the covered states, the class definitions and any opt-in procedures will be set by the courts as the cases advance. Watch the dockets in the Northern District of Illinois and the District of Connecticut for class certification rulings, which will determine who is actually covered.

1
Chicago Tribune. Lawsuit Cannabis Companies False Claims
2
Claims Journal. Cannabis Companies Face Federal Lawsuit Over Deceptive Marketing
3
FOX 32 Chicago. Lawsuit Compares Cannabis Industry Big Tobacco Targets 3 Chicago-Based Marijuana Companies
4
Wilson Elser. The Cannabis Industry’s Big Tobacco Moment: What Insurers Need to Know About Murray v. Cresco
5
Shaw Local News. Lawsuit Filed in Illinois Takes Aim at Cannabis Dispensaries for Not Warning of Mental Health Risks
6
MJBizDaily. Cannabis MSOs Sued in Federal Court Over Deceptive Medical Marketing Claims
7
Burke Law Group. Duke v. Curaleaf Holdings Class Action Complaint
8
Network for Public Health Law. State Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis Advertising
9
New York Office of Cannabis Management. Part 129 Guidance
10
Arnold Porter. Product Liability Cannabis Product Claims