Kratom Lawsuit | Organ Damage and Wrongful Death Claims

More than a year after a 55-year-old California woman died unexpectedly in her sleep, her family has filed suit against the manufacturer and retailer of the kratom product she’d been using.

Her cause of death was ruled acute mitragynine intoxication, with chronic alcohol use listed as a contributing factor, according to the coroner’s report.

The family’s attorney said manufacturers deliberately use terms like “natural,” “botanical,” and “herbal” to convince consumers that the product is safe, adding that without government regulation to force transparency, “the civil justice system is the only place left” to hold companies accountable.

The attorney said kratom disproportionately affects vulnerable people, including those trying to break dependence on other substances who turn to kratom believing it’s a safer alternative.

According to CDC data, U.S. poison centers logged 14,449 kratom-related reports over the past 11 years, including a record 3,434 in 2025 alone, a more than 1,200% increase from 2015.

Baltimore officials have sued several kratom companies, alleging they deceptively marketed addictive products as safe and therapeutic. 

The city filed the complaint in Maryland Circuit Court on July 28, later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. 

It names JOpen LLC, Martian Sales Inc., PUR Botanicals LLC, and other unidentified entities as defendants.

The suit alleges the companies’ kratom products contain compounds that bind to the same brain receptors as opioids, potentially causing addiction, dependence, and withdrawal, while marketing emphasized pain relief, energy, and stress reduction instead of disclosing those risks. 

Baltimore alleges the companies have known about the risks since at least 2004, pointing to FDA adverse event reports, 2012 import alerts, and a 2017 public health advisory warning about kratom’s opioid-like effects. 

The complaint follows last month’s DEA action placing three concentrated kratom-derived compounds into Schedule I.

Rather than seeking damages alone, Baltimore is asking the court to bar the companies from marketing kratom as safe or therapeutic, and to require clear disclosure on packaging and advertising that kratom’s active compounds carry opioid-like, addictive effects.

The city of Baltimore is suing three kratom distributors, alleging they violated city consumer protection law by marketing kratom as a safe, natural alternative to cannabis or opioids while downplaying its addictive risks.

The city alleges the companies falsely claimed any reported side effects came from “counterfeit” competitors rather than their own products, misleading consumers who might not otherwise know that kratom sold at gas stations carries real risks of dependency and overdose.

The complaint alleges the defendants operate a network of shell companies specifically structured to avoid liability.

Though the suit brings only a single local consumer protection claim and explicitly disclaims any federal issue, the companies removed the case to federal court this week, arguing the parties are diverse and the city’s requested damages exceed the federal jurisdictional threshold.

Baltimore’s mayor said in a statement that the companies have misled residents into addiction under the guise of an “organic” health supplement.

A Southern California family has filed suit against the manufacturer and retailer of a kratom product they believe caused a 55-year-old mother’s death.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Hundreds Premium LLC, the distributor operating as Exotic Blue Magic, and Almond Smoke Shop in Menifee, California.

The plaintiff’s mother, Lauren Dominguez’s mother, was found unresponsive at home more than a year ago.

The coroner’s report listed acute mitragynine intoxication as the cause of death, with chronic alcohol use as a contributing factor.

Mitragynine is one of the main active compounds in kratom.

The complaint alleges deceptive marketing that presented the product as a safe, natural supplement without disclosing addiction and withdrawal risks.

Attorney Michael Jeandron, who represents the family, said even small doses of kratom can cause respiratory depression.

The California Department of Public Health states kratom can lead to addiction, serious harm, overdose and death, and the product is illegal to sell in the state.

The plaintiff’s family said the product remained on shelves at Almond Smoke Shop after her death.

The DEA has classified 7-hydroxymitragynine, a concentrated kratom-derived compound known as 7-OH, as a Schedule I controlled substance, placing it in the same legal category as drugs considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. 

The action followed an earlier FDA recommendation urging the DEA to schedule the compound, based on its ability to bind to opioid receptors and produce effects similar to morphine and fentanyl.

The scheduling action has fueled a wave of wrongful death and injury lawsuits against companies that manufacture and sell 7-OH products, with plaintiffs alleging the substance was marketed as a natural or safe supplement despite carrying opioid-level risks. 

The action does not extend to unmodified, traditional kratom leaf, which remains legal at the federal level even as scrutiny of concentrated kratom extracts continues to intensify.

The Justice Department announced a temporary prohibition on three kratom plant derivatives, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI), MGM-15, and MGM-16, classifying them as controlled substances.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the action targets deliberately manufactured and concentrated opioid products rather than traditional botanical kratom, though the department acknowledged trace amounts of MGPI could potentially appear in some botanical products due to processing or storage.

Certain kratom strains have been found to be up to 20 times stronger than morphine, according to researchers.

The industry, which claims to serve more than 15 million users nationwide, has faced a wave of wrongful death lawsuits in recent years even as it has spent years lobbying the FDA against further restrictions.

The scheduling of these three compounds follows earlier action targeting 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MP), as federal regulators continue tightening restrictions on concentrated kratom extracts while stopping short of banning the raw botanical leaf itself.

Massachusetts’s emergency ban on kratom products took effect August 28, even as four retailers’ lawsuit seeking to block it remains unresolved. 

The retailers filed suit in Suffolk County Superior Court days before the ban’s effective date, arguing the state Department of Public Health failed to meet legal and procedural requirements before issuing it. 

They specifically argue the state didn’t distinguish between natural kratom leaf and chemically concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine products when justifying the ban.

As of the ban’s effective date, state health officials hadn’t yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit, and no hearing date had been set on the retailers’ request for a temporary restraining order. 

The retailers are seeking that restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction barring enforcement until the case is resolved. 

In the meantime, kratom products are now classified as Schedule I substances in Massachusetts, a designation the state says could remain in place for up to a year. 

A DPH spokesperson defended the ban, citing concerns about inconsistent product safety standards and accessibility to young people.

A kratom trade association filed suit against the DEA, asking a federal court to clarify that its recent temporary scheduling order shouldn’t apply to naturally occurring compounds in raw kratom leaf.

The group isn’t seeking to block the DEA’s order, which places several kratom-derived compounds, including 7-OH, on Schedule I.

Instead, it wants the court to confirm the rule targets synthetic or concentrated products rather than the unmodified plant material itself.

The group argues that public statements from DEA and HHS officials focused specifically on concentrated 7-OH products, while the order’s literal chemical listing could be read as sweeping in trace compounds that occur naturally during ordinary harvesting and processing.

It’s asking the court to resolve that ambiguity before businesses, researchers, and consumers face uncertain legal exposure.

The order followed an earlier FDA recommendation to schedule 7-OH, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly called the targeted compounds dangerous opioids fueling addiction.

Four Massachusetts kratom retailers filed suit in Suffolk County Superior Court against the state Department of Public Health and its commissioner.

The complaint challenges the state’s new blanket ban on all kratom products, arguing it doesn’t meet standards set by the legislature.

The ban was issued as an emergency order and was set to take effect this week, temporarily classifying kratom as a Schedule I controlled substance.

The retailers argue the ban fails to distinguish between natural kratom leaf and chemically concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, products.

They also claim the state relied on death data that doesn’t separate the two substances.

The lawsuit warns the ban could eliminate an entire category of legal commerce, causing significant job losses for businesses that have operated legally and transparently.

Four Massachusetts store owners have sued to block the state’s one-year emergency ban on all kratom products.

The suit was filed Friday in Suffolk County Superior Court against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

The plaintiffs are Rihaan Corp., Bhakti LLC, V & K Smoke Shop LLC and Ambreen & S Inc.

The plaintiffs argue the ban is overbroad and fails to distinguish between synthetic or lab-modified kratom and the botanical version they sell.

The ban was announced earlier this month by Public Health Commissioner Dr. Robbie Goldstein, placing kratom into Schedule 1, the category reserved for drugs like heroin and cocaine.

The complaint claims the commissioner exceeded his authority and says he failed to make specific findings required before imposing such a ban.

The plaintiffs also argue the state overstated kratom’s dangers, noting it has been linked to roughly 100 deaths in Massachusetts over seven years.

They point to a pending DEA scheduling action that would exempt ordinary botanical kratom from restriction.

The plaintiffs do not dispute that some kratom products raise public health concerns.

They argue the state has lawful ways to regulate the substance, including labeling rules, potency limits and age restrictions.

The suit asks a judge to invalidate the ban on multiple grounds, including violation of due process rights tied to the summary suspension of business permits.

A Nevada man has filed suit against Martian Sales Inc., doing business as OPMS, and Skelmis LLC, doing business as Remarkable Herbs, alleging their kratom products left him addicted and caused cardiac injuries.

The complaint was filed in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County late last month, and was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on August 12.

The plaintiff alleges he purchased and used OPMS and Remarkable Herbs kratom products as intended, resulting in addiction, physical dependence, withdrawal and cardiac injuries.

He claims the companies marketed kratom as a harmless, all-natural supplement for energy, mood and pain relief while providing inadequate warnings about its addictive potential and health risks.

The complaint further alleges the defendants targeted vulnerable consumers, including people struggling with addiction, through brightly colored packaging, sweetened gummies, fruit-flavored shots and social media promotion, often sold without age verification.

The case is based on claims of strict product liability based on design defect and failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, and deceptive trade practices.

The plaintiff seeks damages covering medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

An administrator overseeing an overdose death estate is opposing a motion to dismiss filed by six out-of-state Whole Herbs-linked companies.

The companies argue Connecticut courts lack personal jurisdiction over them and they merely placed products into the national stream of commerce.

The estate administrator called that argument misleading in a filing this week, saying the companies built a coordinated network specifically designed to reach Connecticut consumers.

He pointed to the companies’ shared legal representation as evidence of their interconnection.

All six filed a single joint motion to dismiss and also submitted seven nearly identical supporting affidavits.

Some affidavits came from a manager at a separate Whole Herbs company also facing legal action and that has admitted to distributing kratom products in Connecticut.

The administrator argued this undercuts the other companies’ independence claims.

The estate administrator’s son died in April 2024 from combined intoxication involving mitragynine and a prescribed amphetamine.

Mitragynine is one of kratom’s active alkaloids.

The suit alleges the companies knew kratom was dangerous and addictive.

It also alleges they marketed it as a “natural” supplement to avoid regulation.

The case is pending in Connecticut Superior Court.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway reached an agreement barring a St. Louis kratom company and its owners from selling 7-OH products in the state.

The company must remove the products from its stores immediately.

It must also stop all sales, marketing, and distribution statewide.

The owners are barred from holding any financial interest in similar businesses.

This is the latest in a series of settlements her office has reached with kratom distributors this year.

It comes as the DEA moves toward classifying concentrated 7-OH as Schedule I.

The father of a Connecticut man who died from an alleged kratom-related overdose has asked a state court to deny a motion seeking dismissal of product liability claims against the maker of Whole Herbs brand kratom products.

The lawsuit alleges that Paul Buongiorno died in April 2024 from acute intoxication involving mitragynine, a primary alkaloid in kratom, and a prescribed amphetamine medication.

The complaint names multiple kratom manufacturers and distributors, alleging their products were found in his apartment and that they failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with kratom.

Whole Herbs manufacturer JOpen LLC moved to strike several product liability claims, arguing that the complaint does not sufficiently allege its products were defectively designed.

The company also contends that the overdose resulted from excessive consumption rather than any defect in the product.

In response, the plaintiff argues that the complaint adequately alleges design defects and inadequate warnings.

The filing further asserts that kratom manufacturers have not established the substance as safe for human consumption through the regulatory process applicable to new dietary ingredients before marketing their products.

The court has not yet ruled on JOpen’s motion.

The wrongful death lawsuit remains pending in Connecticut Superior Court.

The family of Joshua Bradley has filed a wrongful death suit against Bear Stop Convenience and other Kansas City-area retailers and manufacturers.

They allege that a kratom-derived product called 7-OH caused his death on March 8, 2026.

The suit, filed July 13 in Jackson County Circuit Court, claims Bradley made repeated purchases of the substance, including a product called SEDA 7-Hydroxy Blend Grape Crush.

This product was marketed with the phrase “sink into serenity.”

The family asserts that the stores knew or should have known its addictive risks.

The complaint alleges the retailers relied on the product’s innocent-looking packaging to mask its dangers.

They marketed it with false and misleading labels while failing to warn consumers or implement policies to prevent sales to addicted users.

This is the second such suit filed in the Kansas City area this year.

It follows a March case over the death of David Thacker.

The FDA has described 7-OH as an “emerging opioid threat.”

It has recommended that the DEA classify it as a controlled substance.

However, Missouri has not yet passed a statewide ban.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has moved to temporarily place certain concentrated kratom-related products containing elevated levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) under Schedule I federal drug controls.

The proposal would generally cover kratom plant material containing more than 0.050% 7-OH by dry weight and certain products containing more than 1 milligram of 7-OH.

The action targets concentrated and synthetic 7-OH products, including pills, gummies, powders, and liquid shots, rather than natural kratom leaf without enhanced 7-OH levels.

The DEA also seeks temporary controls for three laboratory-made 7-OH-related substances.

The move follows an earlier FDA recommendation to schedule 7-OH because of its opioid properties and potential risks to consumers.

A Colorado state judge awarded $2.75 million to the parents of a 27-year-old man who died after using kratom products manufactured and distributed by a Colorado company.

Denver District Court Judge Jon Olafson entered the default judgment against 171 Group LLC, which does business as Happy Shaman Herbs and Sabertooth Herbs.

The court found that the company engaged in willful and wanton conduct but declined to award the full $20.1 million requested by Kristal Hopp and Jeffrey Hopp.

The lawsuit alleged that Happy Shaman Herbs failed to warn consumers about the risks associated with kratom.

The Hopps claimed their son, Austin Hopp, believed the products were safe, organic and natural supplements, when they contained mitragynine, a kratom alkaloid associated with serious health risks.

According to the order, the court awarded $1.7 million plus statutory interest and $1 million in exemplary damages.

Other defendants in the case, including Mystic Island Kratoms LLC and One Love LLC, previously settled.

The Hopps alleged that Austin died in June 2022 after using improperly labeled kratom products.

At a damages hearing, testimony indicated that kratom contributed to health problems before his death and that a long-term seizure caused by kratom in his system led to his death.

The case is pending in the Second Judicial District of Colorado.

The next phase of the case will focus on collecting the damages awarded.

Botanic Tonics LLC has asked a federal court to block enforcement of Utah’s Kratom Regulation Act while the lawsuit moves forward.

The company argues the law is unconstitutionally vague because it allows the sale of pure leaf kratom products but also bans mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, a naturally occurring alkaloid found in kratom leaf.

The company says it developed a new “pure leaf” beverage to comply with the law. It then tested that product and eight other pure kratom products sold in Utah.

According to the filing, every product contained trace amounts of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl.

Botanic Tonics argues those results show manufacturers cannot produce a compliant product, creating what it calls an impossible compliance standard.

Utah disputes that argument. State attorneys contend the statute is clear and contains no internal conflict.

They argue that any kratom product containing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl cannot be sold in the state.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ first request for a preliminary injunction before the law took effect.

The renewed motion asks the court to halt enforcement while it considers the plaintiffs’ claim that the statute is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a new emergency rule that expands the state’s restrictions on 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and several related compounds found in highly concentrated kratom-derived products.

The rule lowers allowable concentrations by prohibiting products containing more than 1 milligram of covered compounds per gram or milliliter and requiring products containing 7-OH or related substances to have at least 100 times as much mitragynine by mass.

State officials said the changes target manufacturers that altered formulations to avoid restrictions imposed under Florida’s 2025 emergency rule.

The expanded restrictions cover 7-OH, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, 7-acetoxymitragynine, 9-hydroxycorynantheidine, 10-hydroxycorynantheidine, MGM-15, and MGM-16.

During the announcement, Uthmeier stated that Florida medical examiners have linked 587 overdose deaths to 7-OH and related compounds.

Physicians from Tampa General Hospital also cited increasing reports of poison center calls and described cases involving severe dependence, seizures, and other serious adverse effects associated with concentrated products sold as gummies, tablets, drink mixes, shots, teas, and extracts.

The announcement adds to growing regulatory scrutiny of enhanced kratom products nationwide.

Florida officials said the new rule is intended to prevent the sale of highly concentrated formulations that emerged after earlier restrictions took effect, while regulators continue to monitor products marketed as alternatives for pain relief and substance use recovery.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced settlements that stop the sale of concentrated kratom products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) in the state.

The agreements require several manufacturers and retailers to cease distributing the products and resolve allegations that the companies marketed highly concentrated 7-OH products despite concerns about their potency and addiction risks.

The settlements are part of Missouri’s broader effort to restrict access to concentrated kratom-derived products.

Earlier this month, American Shaman agreed to suspend sales of kratom and 7-OH products in Missouri under a separate agreement with the Attorney General’s Office.

State officials argue that concentrated 7-OH products differ significantly from traditional kratom products and may produce opioid-like effects.

Regulators have raised concerns that the products can increase the risk of dependence, misuse, and other serious health consequences.

The Missouri settlements add to growing scrutiny of 7-OH products at both the state and federal levels.

Regulators, lawmakers, and public health agencies continue to examine whether additional restrictions are necessary as sales of concentrated kratom-derived products expand nationwide.

These developments could become relevant in future litigation involving kratom manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.

Plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits have alleged that companies failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with concentrated kratom products, including dependence, withdrawal symptoms, and other adverse health effects.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced settlements that stop the sale of concentrated kratom products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) in the state.

The agreements require several manufacturers and retailers to cease distributing the products and resolve allegations that the companies marketed highly concentrated 7-OH products despite concerns about their potency and addiction risks.

The settlements are part of Missouri’s broader effort to restrict access to concentrated kratom-derived products.

Earlier this month, American Shaman agreed to suspend sales of kratom and 7-OH products in Missouri under a separate agreement with the Attorney General’s Office.

State officials argue that concentrated 7-OH products differ significantly from traditional kratom products and may produce opioid-like effects.

Regulators have raised concerns that the products can increase the risk of dependence, misuse, and other serious health consequences.

The Missouri settlements add to growing scrutiny of 7-OH products at both the state and federal levels.

Regulators, lawmakers, and public health agencies continue to examine whether additional restrictions are necessary as sales of concentrated kratom-derived products expand nationwide.

These developments could become relevant in future litigation involving kratom manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.

Plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits have alleged that companies failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with concentrated kratom products, including dependence, withdrawal symptoms, and other adverse health effects.

A legal battle over kratom regulation is intensifying in Utah, where state officials are urging a federal court to reject a renewed attempt to block enforcement of the state’s Kratom Regulation Act.

The lawsuit was filed by kratom industry groups and manufacturers, who argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague and improperly restricts products that have been legally sold in the state for years.

At the center of the dispute is the law’s treatment of mitragynine, a naturally occurring alkaloid found in kratom leaves.

Plaintiffs contend that the statute creates confusion by allowing the sale of kratom leaf while simultaneously classifying mitragynine as a prohibited Schedule I substance under Utah law.

State officials disagree, arguing that the law clearly prohibits products containing the alkaloid and that there is no ambiguity in the statute’s language.

The court previously denied an initial request to halt the law before it took effect in May 2026.

Utah now argues that the plaintiffs’ latest motion largely repeats arguments already rejected and primarily identifies economic harms rather than the type of irreparable injury required for emergency court intervention.

The case highlights the growing legal and regulatory scrutiny surrounding kratom products nationwide.

As lawmakers and regulators continue debating the safety of concentrated kratom extracts and alkaloid-based products, litigation involving manufacturers, distributors, and consumers is expected to expand.

The outcome of the Utah challenge could influence how other states approach kratom regulation and may play a significant role in future product liability and consumer safety litigation involving kratom-based products.

A California federal judge dismissed racketeering claims brought against kratom supplements company DBZ Enterprises LLC, finding consumers failed to sufficiently allege the company operated a coordinated criminal enterprise to conceal the addictive nature of its products.

The lawsuit was filed by consumers from California and Oregon who allege they developed dependency and withdrawal symptoms after using DBZ’s kratom products. Plaintiffs claim the company failed to warn consumers that kratom’s active alkaloids can produce opioid-like effects and carry risks of addiction, dependence, and withdrawal.

The court ruled that the complaint did not adequately establish the existence of a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), stating allegations involving unnamed “associates” and coordinated concealment efforts were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail. The RICO claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to amend and refile those allegations.

The judge also dismissed implied warranty claims with prejudice, finding consumers lacked the required direct purchasing relationship with the manufacturer because the products were purchased through third-party retailers. However, several claims remain active, including fraud by omission and California consumer protection claims alleging deceptive marketing and failure to disclose addiction risks.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of kratom distributor Mood Rite LLC in a wrongful death lawsuit involving a 27-year-old man who died from acute mitragynine toxicity after ingesting the company’s kratom product.

The appellate court agreed that Mood Rite functioned only as a product seller rather than a manufacturer, despite repackaging and relabeling the kratom product before sale.

The court found the company had no role in developing or formulating the kratom itself and therefore could not be held strictly liable under Georgia product liability law.

The panel also rejected claims that Mood Rite failed to adequately warn consumers about potential fatal risks associated with kratom use.

The court held that, at the time of the sale, publicly available information about kratom-related deaths was limited and not widespread enough to establish that the distributor reasonably should have known the product could be lethal.

The ruling highlights a key issue in ongoing kratom litigation involving the distinction between manufacturers and downstream sellers.

The decision reinforces the legal challenges plaintiffs face when attempting to impose strict liability or expanded warning duties on distributors and retailers that did not formulate or directly manufacture kratom products.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has filed a lawsuit against Relax Relief Rejuvenate Trading LLC, doing business as EDP Kratom, alleging the company unlawfully manufactured and sold kratom-derived products containing high-potency compounds including 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and MGM-15.

The lawsuit alleges EDP Kratom marketed and distributed products without required safety testing or regulatory approvals while failing to adequately disclose addiction, withdrawal, and overdose risks associated with the substances.

Missouri also claims the company shipped free 7-OH products to consumers known to struggle with addiction, allegedly perpetuating dependency.

State officials further allege MGM-15, a synthetic derivative referenced in the complaint, may be substantially more potent than morphine and was sold through smoke shops, gas stations, and online retailers without sufficient safeguards or age verification measures.

The action is part of Missouri’s broader investigation into kratom and kratom-derived products and reflects growing enforcement efforts focused on whether manufacturers and retailers failed to warn consumers about the risks of concentrated kratom compounds.

The lawsuit centers on deceptive marketing, product safety, addiction risk, and the sale of allegedly unlawful opioid-like substances under consumer protection laws.

A major legal fight over kratom products is escalating after Botanic Tonics LLC and the Global Kratom Coalition asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to block a new Utah law banning certain kratom products from being sold in the state.

The appeal comes just days after a federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the law from taking effect.

The Utah law, which is now active, prohibits the sale of kratom products mixed with any “non-kratom substance,” targeting combination products like Botanic Tonics’ “feel free” drink, which contains both kratom and kava.

Botanic Tonics argues the ban conflicts with federal dietary supplement laws and claims the company could suffer more than $10 million in lost sales and long-term brand damage if the law remains in place during the litigation.

The dispute reflects growing national scrutiny surrounding kratom products, particularly flavored drinks and enhanced formulations that critics argue are being marketed in ways that increase addiction and safety concerns.

Regulators and lawmakers in several states have pushed for tighter oversight as reports continue involving dependence, withdrawal symptoms, cardiovascular complications and other alleged kratom-related injuries.

The Utah litigation may also become an important test case for how courts handle conflicts between state kratom restrictions and federal dietary supplement laws.

Industry groups continue to argue that states cannot impose bans that effectively override federal regulations governing supplement products.

At the same time, opponents of kratom products maintain that states have broad authority to regulate substances they believe pose public health risks, especially products marketed with psychoactive effects.

The outcome of the appeal could have broader implications for kratom manufacturers and distributors nationwide as more states consider restrictions on flavored or enhanced kratom products.

New Hampshire lawmakers are advancing legislation aimed at regulating kratom potency and restricting the sale of enhanced or synthetic kratom products as concerns grow over high-concentration formulations.

The proposed legislation targets products containing elevated levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine and chemically altered kratom compounds, including synthetic and semisynthetic derivatives that lawmakers say are significantly more potent than natural kratom leaf products.

The bill would also prohibit liquor license holders from selling or distributing certain kratom products and impose penalties for violations.

Supporters of the legislation have cited increasing reports of overdose risks, addiction concerns, and the spread of highly concentrated “gas station heroin” products marketed through smoke shops and convenience stores.

The proposal reflects a broader national shift toward regulating high-potency kratom derivatives rather than banning traditional leaf products outright.

A federal judge in Utah has refused to block a new state law banning the sale of kratom products mixed with other psychoactive substances, marking a significant development in the growing legal battle over kratom regulation nationwide.

The lawsuit was brought by the Global Kratom Coalition and Botanic Tonics, maker of the “feel free” beverage, which combines kratom with kava root.

The companies argued that federal dietary supplement laws preempt Utah’s new restrictions and protect the sale of their products.

However, the court rejected that argument, finding that federal law does not require states to allow the sale of kratom-based products simply because they qualify as dietary supplements.

The Utah Kratom Regulation Act, which took effect this week, prohibits the sale of kratom products combined with non-kratom substances, except for limited inert ingredients.

The judge concluded that companies can still comply with both federal and state law by simply not selling the banned products in Utah.

The ruling highlights the increasingly aggressive regulatory scrutiny surrounding kratom products, particularly formulations marketed for mood enhancement, energy or relaxation.

Products like “feel free” have already faced lawsuits and public criticism over allegations involving dependency, withdrawal symptoms and undisclosed health risks.

The decision could also influence how other states approach kratom regulation moving forward.

Rather than imposing labeling requirements alone, lawmakers may now feel more confident pursuing outright restrictions or bans on certain kratom combinations, especially products mixed with other psychoactive ingredients like kava.

California state officials have filed a lawsuit against a kratom manufacturer alleging it continued producing and distributing illegal kratom products despite prior enforcement actions and embargoes.

The complaint, brought by the California Department of Public Health and the Attorney General, alleges the company manufactured and sold kratom and concentrated derivatives that are illegal for human consumption under state law.

Regulators claim the company ignored state orders to stop distribution and interfered with embargoed products.

Officials also cite significant health risks associated with these products, including addiction, overdose, and death, particularly tied to high-potency compounds like 7-hydroxymitragynine.

The state is seeking injunctive relief to halt production and distribution, destroy existing inventory, and impose civil penalties.

The lawsuit centers on core issues seen in kratom litigation, particularly whether manufacturers knowingly sold unlawful or adulterated products and failed to comply with regulatory restrictions.

It reinforces claims involving failure to warn, illegal distribution, and the sale of high-risk substances despite known public health dangers.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against kratom retailers, alleging the sale of products containing excessively high levels of an opioid-like compound that exceed legal limits.

The suit claims the retailers marketed and sold products containing up to 96% 7-hydroxymitragynine, nearly fifty times higher than the 2% cap established under Texas law.

The state alleges these products were deceptively presented to consumers while containing synthetic or highly concentrated substances prohibited under the Texas Kratom Consumer Health and Safety Protection Act.

The complaint further alleges that these high-potency products pose serious risks, including addiction, respiratory depression, and overdose, particularly when sold without proper disclosure or regulatory compliance.

The state is seeking to halt sales and pursue civil penalties under consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit centers on key issues seen in kratom litigation, including whether retailers knowingly sold adulterated or mislabeled products and whether consumers were exposed to undisclosed risks due to deceptive marketing and unlawful product composition.

A wrongful death lawsuit involving alleged kratom-related toxicity continues to develop as two defendants deny liability and raise procedural defenses in Connecticut state court.

Kratom Brands filed responses asserting that Kratom Lawsuits brought by the estate of Paul Buongiorno should be dismissed.

The lawsuit alleges that Paul Buongiorno, age 33, died on April 30, 2024, from acute intoxication involving mitragynine, a primary alkaloid in kratom, and a prescribed amphetamine. The complaint states that the amphetamine was used as directed, while kratom products were found in the decedent’s residence.

The estate filed claims against multiple defendants, including strict liability, failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, breach of warranty, and deceptive marketing practices. The lawsuit seeks damages related to death, funeral costs, and punitive damages.

MIT45 and GMA deny any causal connection between their products and the death. Court filings state that the decedent “knowingly, voluntarily, and willfully assumed the risk” associated with kratom consumption. The defendants argue that any injuries resulted from pre-existing conditions, unrelated health factors, or individual reactions.

The filings also assert compliance with applicable regulatory standards governing manufacturing, labeling, and distribution.

The defendants raise several procedural defenses that may affect how Kratom Lawsuits proceed. The companies argue that the statute of limitations has expired, that Connecticut courts lack personal jurisdiction, and that another venue would be more appropriate.

The filings do not provide detailed arguments supporting each claim, which may be addressed in future motions.

Tennessee lawmakers are advancing “Matthew Davenport’s Law,” a bill that would ban the possession, sale, and distribution of kratom statewide by imposing significant criminal penalties.

The legislation would make possession of kratom illegal and classify manufacturing or selling the substance as a felony, with enhanced penalties for sales involving minors.

The bill is named after a Tennessee man whose death was linked to kratom use combined with prescription medications, and lawmakers have cited public health risks as the basis for the ban.

Kratom is widely sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores and is often marketed as a natural supplement despite serious health risks reported.

A recent report, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that kratom-related poisonings in the United States have increased by approximately 1,200% over the past decade, with a sharp rise reported in 2025.

Medical and pharmacology experts attribute the increase in poisonings to synthetic derivatives, including 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), rather than the natural kratom plant, Mitragyna speciosa.

Researchers indicate that 7-OH has been marketed as kratom in products such as energy drinks since around 2024.

This labeling practice may contribute to consumer confusion and exposure to compounds with higher toxicity risks.

Experts report that 7-OH carries characteristics similar to opioids, including risks of respiratory depression, addiction, and withdrawal.

The CDC data includes poison control calls that often do not distinguish between natural kratom and synthetic derivatives, which may complicate regulatory and legal evaluations.

This distinction is central to potential Kratom Lawsuits, as plaintiffs may argue that manufacturers failed to disclose the presence or risks of synthetic compounds.

Natural kratom has been studied in both animal and human research, with some findings indicating limited adverse effects when used alone.

A prior federal review declined to classify kratom as a Schedule I substance, citing insufficient evidence of harm.

Some individuals report using kratom for chronic pain management or as part of opioid addiction recovery.

Several states have proposed or enacted broad restrictions on kratom products.

Legal challenges may arise if regulations do not distinguish between plant-based kratom and concentrated synthetic derivatives.

The CDC findings and expert analysis may play a role in future litigation by establishing causation arguments and identifying specific compounds linked to adverse health outcomes

Connecticut has officially banned the sale and possession of kratom, classifying the substance as a Schedule I controlled substance and requiring retailers to immediately remove products from shelves.

The designation makes it illegal to sell, distribute, or possess kratom statewide, placing it in the same regulatory category as drugs with high abuse potential and no accepted medical use.

State officials cited concerns about addiction, lack of regulation, and potential health risks as key reasons for the ban.

Medical experts have noted that kratom can act similarly to opioids and may lead to dependence, with some users experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms.

These regulatory actions align with allegations in ongoing wrongful death and product liability litigation involving kratom.

Plaintiffs in those cases claim the substance was marketed as safe or beneficial despite known risks and sold widely in retail settings without adequate oversight or warnings.

By eliminating legal access and emphasizing the substance’s risks, Connecticut’s ban reflects the same core issues being litigated, particularly whether kratom products were distributed and promoted without sufficient safeguards, disclosures, or regulatory controls.

Officials in Riverside, California, have moved to ban the sale of nitrous oxide and kratom citywide, citing public health concerns tied to widespread retail availability in smoke shops and gas stations.

The proposed ordinances would prohibit most sales, with limited exceptions for legitimate uses such as medical, dental, and food preparation.

City officials pointed to evidence that both substances are being sold with minimal oversight and marketed in ways that downplay potential risks.

Law enforcement and health authorities linked nitrous oxide misuse to nerve damage, cognitive impairment, and impaired driving, while kratom products were associated with opioid-like effects and, in some cases, fatal overdoses.

The bans directly reflect issues raised in ongoing litigation involving both substances.

In nitrous oxide cases, plaintiffs have alleged that flavored products and retail placement encourage recreational misuse despite known dangers.

In kratom litigation, claims focus on whether the substance was marketed as safe or natural despite risks of addiction, injury, and lack of regulatory approval.

By eliminating retail access and emphasizing the dangers associated with misuse, the city’s actions align with core allegations in these lawsuits, particularly claims that companies sold and promoted potentially harmful products without adequate safeguards or warnings.

Officials in Scranton, Pennsylvania are pushing to ban the sale and possession of kratom, while lawmakers in Iowa are considering a statewide ban on the substance amid growing safety concerns.

Both efforts focus on restricting access to kratom, which remains widely available in retail settings despite limited regulation.

In Pennsylvania, local prosecutors have raised concerns about kratom’s availability and its potential link to harmful outcomes, prompting calls for stricter enforcement and prohibition at the municipal level.

In Iowa, proposed legislation would implement a broader statewide ban, reflecting similar concerns about public health risks and lack of oversight.

These actions align with allegations in ongoing wrongful death and product liability lawsuits involving kratom, where plaintiffs claim the substance was marketed as safe or beneficial despite known risks.

Central issues in those cases include whether sellers failed to warn consumers, whether products contained harmful or undisclosed ingredients, and whether widespread retail availability contributed to misuse.

By targeting access at both the local and state level, these efforts reflect the same core issues being litigated, particularly claims that kratom products were sold without adequate safeguards or clear disclosures regarding their potential dangers.

Michigan lawmakers have advanced legislation that would ban the production, sale, and distribution of kratom, reflecting growing concern over the substance’s safety and marketing.

The bill, which passed the state House, would criminalize a wide range of activities involving kratom and its synthetic variants, with penalties including fines and potential jail time.

The legislation is grounded in concerns that kratom poses significant health risks, including addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and other serious medical effects.

Lawmakers and regulators have pointed to reports of harm and fatalities, as well as the substance’s widespread availability in retail settings such as smoke shops and gas stations.

By targeting both the sale and distribution of kratom and emphasizing its potential health risks, the proposed ban aligns closely with the factual disputes at the heart of current litigation, particularly claims that retailers and distributors continued to sell the product despite safety concerns and inadequate regulatory oversight.

An insurance coverage dispute tied to a wrongful death lawsuit over kratom products has been resolved through settlement, ending litigation over whether retailers were entitled to a defense under their policies.

The insurer had sought a declaratory judgment that its policies did not cover claims arising from the sale of kratom products alleged to have caused a consumer’s death.

The underlying lawsuit, brought by the decedent’s father, alleges that smoke shops sold kratom products despite knowledge of safety risks and marketed them with misleading health claims.

The complaint further asserts that the products were unapproved and unsafe, contributing to a fatal toxic combination involving kratom and another substance.

While the settlement terms were not disclosed, the resolution leaves the underlying wrongful death claims against the retailers ongoing.

The case centers on allegations that sellers failed to warn consumers and continued distributing products despite known or alleged risks associated with kratom use.