Our firm is about people. That is our motto and that will always be our reality.
We do our best to get to know our clients, understand their situations, and get them the compensation they deserve.
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Without our team, we would’nt be able to provide our clients with anything close to the level of service they receive when they work with us.
The TorHoerman Law Team commits to the sincere belief that those injured by the misconduct of others, especially large corporate profit mongers, deserve justice for their injuries.
Our team is what has made TorHoerman Law a very special place since 2009.
Kratom lawsuit claims center on serious health risks and fatal overdoses linked to kratom products that have been sold across the United States in powders, capsules, extracts, and drink formulations.
Reports of organ damage, dependence, seizures, and life-threatening medical emergencies have raised significant public health concerns about the safety of certain kratom products and the warnings provided to consumers.
TorHoerman Law is reviewing claims involving injuries and wrongful death allegedly linked to kratom usage.
Kratom is a plant-derived substance sold in powders, capsules, extracts, drink mixes, and other products that often appear in smoke shops, gas stations, convenience stores, and online marketplaces, sometimes alongside other herbal supplements.
Federal regulators say there are no lawful, FDA-approved uses for kratom, and they have repeatedly warned that products marketed for pain relief, mood support, or opioid withdrawal symptoms may qualify as unapproved kratom drug products rather than lawful supplements or foods.
Many people use kratom because it is promoted as a natural option for energy, discomfort, mood issues, or substance-related support, and some sellers distribute kratom with misleading claims about its ability to help with pain, addiction, or other medical conditions.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken action against companies that distribute kratom with disease-treatment claims and has said sellers must warn consumers about serious risks instead of presenting these products as safe, simple wellness aids.
That scrutiny has grown because serious health problems have been associated with kratom use, including liver toxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, seizures, gastrointestinal distress, respiratory depression, addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and death.
Federal safety materials also state that rare deaths have been associated with kratom use, and some products have been linked to serious adverse events and fatal overdoses.
As reports of organ damage, overdose, and wrongful death continue to surface, kratom injury lawyers are investigating whether kratom manufacturers and other parties may be legally responsible for selling dangerous products without adequate warnings or with misleading claims about their safety and intended use.
If you or a loved one suffered organ damage, overdose, or a wrongful death allegedly linked to kratom use, you may have grounds to pursue legal action against the companies that made, marketed, or sold the product.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation.
Use the chat feature on this page for a free case evaluation and to get in touch with our kratom injury lawyers.
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.
May 19th, 2026: Georgia Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Kratom Wrongful Death Claims Against Distributor
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 newly filed lawsuit has been added to the growing Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation, with the plaintiff alleging that prolonged use of the contraceptive injection caused her to develop an intracranial meningioma after years of treatment.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff began experiencing persistent and worsening headaches before ultimately being diagnosed with a brain tumor.
The lawsuit alleges the tumor caused significant neurological symptoms and required ongoing medical monitoring and treatment.
The case claims manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about research linking long-term exposure to medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, to an increased risk of meningioma brain tumors.
The plaintiff alleges she would have avoided or discontinued the injections had proper warnings been provided earlier.
The lawsuit has now joined the broader Depo-Provera MDL, where plaintiffs are similarly alleging failure to warn, defective design, and inadequate disclosure of neurological risks associated with long-term use of the drug.
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.
Kratom is a tropical plant native to Southeast Asia that comes from the tree Mitragyna speciosa, whose leaves have been used historically in parts of Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia for their stimulant and pain-relieving effects.
The plant’s kratom leaves contain several psychoactive compounds, most notably mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which can interact with the body’s opioid receptors and produce opioid-like effects at higher doses.
In the United States, these products are widely available and have become a growing part of the kratom industry, appearing in powders, capsules, drink shots, and concentrated kratom extracts sold online and in retail stores.
Many consumers are introduced to these products after they are marketed as a natural alternative for energy, pain relief, mood support, or assistance with opioid addiction and other substance-related conditions.
Because kratom’s psychoactive compounds act on the same biological systems involved in opioid signaling, researchers and regulators continue to study how these substances affect the brain and body.
Despite its growing popularity, federal health authorities state that kratom has no approved medical uses and that its safety and long-term health effects remain under investigation.

Common forms of kratom products include:
Historically, kratom leaves were used in local labor and folk-medicine settings, but the American commercial market has transformed that traditional use into a national retail category with far less consistency in dose, composition, and labeling.
Federal regulators and researchers now focus not only on the plant itself, but also on how psychoactive compounds are concentrated, how products are promoted to consumers, and whether sellers blur the line between a raw botanical and a drug-like product.
Kratom products are widely available across the United States through smoke shops, convenience stores, gas stations, specialty supplement retailers, and online marketplaces, often sold alongside other herbal supplements.
The modern kratom market includes powders, capsules, beverages, and concentrated extracts, and many consumers encounter these products after seeing claims about potential health benefits related to energy, mood, discomfort, or support while taking kratom.
Despite the scale of the market, kratom remains largely outside traditional pharmaceutical oversight, and there are no federal product safety regulations that specifically approve kratom as a drug or establish standardized dosing requirements.
Federal agencies have stated that some companies distribute kratom with claims that position it as a treatment for pain, opioid dependence, or other medical conditions, even though those uses have not been approved.
In response, regulators have issued warnings to certain kratom manufacturers and kratom sellers for marketing products with unverified medical claims or without adequate safety disclosures.

Common places where kratom products are sold include:
Kratom products are sold in several forms, ranging from traditional plant material to highly concentrated derivatives with different potency levels and chemical profiles.
The most common form is kratom powder, which is made by drying and grinding kratom leaves from the Mitragyna speciosa tree and is typically consumed in capsules, mixed into drinks, or brewed as tea.
As the market expanded in the United States, manufacturers began producing kratom extracts, which concentrate the plant’s active alkaloids and may contain significantly higher levels of mitragynine or related compounds than raw leaf products.
These extracts are often sold in small bottles known as “shots,” liquid tinctures, or other concentrated forms designed to deliver stronger effects in smaller amounts.
In recent years, some companies have also introduced products built around 7-hydroxymitragynine, commonly called 7-OH, a powerful alkaloid found naturally in kratom in very small amounts but sometimes concentrated or added to commercial formulations.
Health agencies have warned that certain 7-OH products, including tablets, gummies, drink mixes, and shots, may present greater safety risks because they contain concentrated levels of a compound that acts strongly on opioid receptors.
As a result, regulators and researchers increasingly distinguish between traditional kratom leaf products and newer concentrated extracts or 7-OH formulations when evaluating safety concerns, overdose reports, and potential regulatory action.
One of the central concerns surrounding kratom is that many products are sold in a largely unregulated market that operates outside the oversight applied to prescription drugs or conventional medications.
Federal regulators have stated that kratom is not lawfully marketed in the United States as a drug or as part of dietary supplements because there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the ingredient is safe for consumer use.
Some kratom manufacturers have been found to mislabel their products and certain products have even been found to contain heavy metals and other contaminants.
Despite that regulatory gap, kratom manufacturers and distributors continue to sell powders, capsules, extracts, and beverages nationwide, often with little consistency in labeling, dosage instructions, or ingredient disclosure.
Researchers and public health agencies also note that some individuals report using kratom to manage opioid use disorder or withdrawal symptoms, even though federal authorities say there are no approved medical uses for the substance.
At the same time, health agencies have documented reports of dependency, drug abuse patterns, and adverse events such as kratom overdose, prompting ongoing scrutiny by regulators and law enforcement.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) currently classifies kratom as a “Drug and Chemical of Concern,” reflecting continuing debate over whether additional federal controls may be necessary.

Risks associated with the lack of regulation in the kratom market include:
Reports from federal agencies and published safety reviews show that kratom has been linked to severe health risks involving multiple organ systems, not just isolated side effects.
The FDA has identified adverse effects associated with kratom use that include liver toxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, seizures, gastrointestinal distress, respiratory depression, addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and death.
Public-health and research sources also note that some people use kratom in an attempt to manage pain, substance dependence, or mental health problems, even though no kratom product is approved for those purposes in the United States.
The clinical picture can become more complicated when kratom is taken with other drugs, because federal data on overdose deaths has found that kratom was often detected alongside multiple other substances.
Reported complications extend beyond dependency concerns and can include physical dependence, high blood pressure, neurological symptoms, and medically serious toxic reactions that require emergency treatment.
Some cases described in agency reports and toxicology findings involve even fatal overdoses, which is why litigation and medical review in these matters often focus on product type, dose, co-exposures, and the timing of symptoms before injury or death.

Liver injury is one of the most frequently cited serious complications associated with kratom in federal safety warnings and published medical literature, with the FDA specifically identifying liver toxicity as a known adverse event linked to kratom use.
Published reviews and case reports describe kratom-associated hepatotoxicity as a form of drug-induced liver injury that can appear after regular use over days or weeks, sometimes with jaundice, dark urine, abdominal pain, itching, fatigue, nausea, and sharply elevated liver enzymes.
Researchers have also noted that kratom liver injury may present with cholestatic or mixed patterns of injury, and in rare cases the reported damage has been severe enough to raise concern for acute liver failure or the need for transplant-level care.
Common symptoms reported in kratom-related liver injury cases include:
Kidney complications are reported less often than liver injury in the kratom literature, but published case reports and recent reviews still describe renal effects as part of the broader pattern of organ toxicity linked to kratom exposure.
A 2025 review of human case reports identified reported kidney effects among the organ systems involved in acute adverse events, while also noting that many severe cases included confounding substances or incomplete toxicology data.
The medical literature also includes individual cases of acute kidney injury and renal insufficiency after kratom use, sometimes alongside dehydration, rhabdomyolysis, cholestatic liver injury, or multiorgan dysfunction rather than isolated kidney damage alone.
Public-facing guidance likewise states that rare but serious effects reported in people who use kratom include cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and psychiatric complications, which is consistent with the way renal problems often appear as part of a wider toxic presentation.
Some reported renal presentations have involved elevated creatinine, reduced kidney function, flank pain, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury severe enough to require hospital-level care.
Because the current evidence base is still driven largely by case reports rather than large controlled studies, clinicians generally evaluate renal complications in the full context of dose, product type, co-exposures, dehydration, muscle breakdown, and other signs of systemic toxicity.
Reported renal findings in kratom-related cases have included:
Kratom has been associated in safety reports and published reviews with cardiovascular and neurological complications, including tachycardia, hypertension, QTc prolongation, ventricular arrhythmia, seizures, and altered mental status.
The FDA continues to warn consumers about serious adverse events linked to kratom, specifically including seizures, while a 2021 review of cardiotoxicity literature found repeated reports of increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, conduction abnormalities, and abnormal heart rhythms in some users.
Recent reviews of human case reports also describe brain-related findings such as seizure activity, lethargy, confusion, loss of consciousness, and cerebral edema in some severe cases, although the quality of the evidence varies and many reports involve incomplete toxicology or co-exposure to other substances.
A 2025 Frontiers review of seizure reports identified 20 individuals described in case reports or case series after kratom use, but the authors concluded the evidence was not strong enough to prove kratom alone causes seizures because medical records were inconsistent and dose-response data were often missing.
Cardiovascular and neurological symptoms can appear together in a broader toxic presentation, especially when concentrated products, high doses, or additional substances are involved.
Clinicians evaluating these events generally look at product type, timing of exposure, blood pressure and rhythm findings, toxicology, and the presence of other drugs or medical conditions that could contribute to the episode.
Reported heart and neurological complications in kratom-related cases have included:
Respiratory depression, namely kratom-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), is one of the most medically serious complications described in kratom-related safety warnings, because slowed or impaired breathing can develop in severe intoxication and progress to a life-threatening emergency.
The FDA states that serious adverse events linked to kratom include respiratory depression and that deaths have been associated with kratom use in some cases confirmed by medical examiner or toxicology findings.
Overdose reports involving kratom often present with a broader toxic picture rather than one isolated symptom, and emergency findings may include unresponsiveness, profound sedation, vomiting, rapid heart rate, seizures, or depressed breathing.
CDC data on kratom-positive overdose deaths found that kratom was most often detected with multiple other substances, which means many fatal cases involve polysubstance exposure rather than kratom alone.
NIDA likewise notes that serious effects reported with kratom include respiratory problems and that only a small number of deaths have been linked to kratom products compared with other drugs, with nearly all of those deaths involving other drugs or contaminants.
Clinicians therefore evaluate suspected kratom overdose in the full context of product type, dose, co-exposures, toxicology, and the timing of symptoms before collapse or emergency treatment.
Reported overdose and emergency features in kratom-related cases have included:
You may qualify to file a kratom lawsuit if you developed a serious medical condition after using a kratom product and there is evidence tying that product to the harm.
Federal regulators continue to warn that kratom has been linked to serious adverse events, including liver toxicity, seizures, substance use disorder, and in rare cases death.
Kratom litigation centers on severe injuries rather than temporary side effects.
People with organ damage, overdose-related complications, hospitalization, long-term impairment, or the death of a family member are usually the most likely to have viable claims.
If you were harmed by kratom, the strength of the case often depends on whether the product can be identified and whether the medical record supports a connection between use and injury.

That may include medical records, toxicology findings, hospital records, product packaging, purchase receipts, or witness statements showing what was taken and when symptoms began.
Product identification matters because some claims involve plain powder, while others involve concentrated extracts or stronger liquid products.
Families may also qualify to bring wrongful death claims when a loved one died after alleged kratom exposure.
In those cases, the person who files is usually determined by state law and may be a spouse, child, parent, or estate representative.
Some existing cases have already been brought against manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and vendors over alleged failure to protect consumers from unsafe kratom products or inadequate warnings.
Evidence often determines whether a kratom case can move through the legal process, because serious injury alone is usually not enough without records showing what product was used and what happened afterward.
These cases can involve legal challenges over causation, especially when the product was a concentrated extract, toxicology is incomplete, or other substances were also present.
Medical records, toxicology findings, purchase history, and product labeling can help show both the extent of the injury and the timeline between exposure and symptoms.
Lawyers use that evidence to identify the product, evaluate warning and marketing issues, work with medical experts, and build a case that can withstand scrutiny from manufacturers and insurers.

Important evidence in kratom-related cases may include:
Damages are the losses a lawsuit seeks to recover after a person suffers injury or death because of a dangerous product.
In kratom cases, damages usually begin with the financial cost of the harm, including medical treatment, hospital care, rehabilitation, and other medical expenses tied to the injury.
They can also include the broader effect the injury has had on the person’s life, such as lost income, physical pain, reduced functioning, or the long-term impact of organ damage or other serious complications.
Experienced attorneys assess damages by reviewing medical records, billing records, employment history, expert opinions, and the day-to-day consequences of the injury so they can present a full picture of what the harm has cost.
That work helps lawyers calculate compensation in a way that reflects both the immediate losses and the future burdens created by a serious kratom-related injury or wrongful death.

Damages in kratom lawsuits may include:
Kratom wrongful death lawsuit claims usually allege that a manufacturer, distributor, or seller failed to warn consumers about serious safety risks tied to the product.
Current kratom litigation also includes allegations that some companies misled consumers by presenting kratom as safe, natural, or appropriate for therapeutic use despite reported risks of overdose, organ injury, addiction, and death.
Several lawsuits have been filed against kratom manufacturers and distributors based on those core allegations, including claims that the companies sold dangerous products without adequate warnings or clear safety instructions.
These cases often focus on whether the product’s labeling, marketing, or formulation exposed consumers to dangers they were not properly told about before use.
One of the most notable outcomes came in Washington state, where a jury awarded $2.5 million to the family of Patrick Coyne after finding liability in a kratom wrongful death case involving inadequate warnings and an unreasonably dangerous product.
Reporting on that verdict described it as the first civil trial verdict in the United States brought on behalf of a person killed by kratom.
Another major case came out of Florida, where a judge awarded more than $11 million to the family of Krystal Talavera after her death from acute intoxication caused by mitragynine, one of kratom’s main active compounds.
The judgment followed allegations against the distributor, Kratom Distro, and public reporting on the case said the autopsy listed acute mitragynine intoxication as the cause of death.
These claims are commonly framed as wrongful death actions based on negligence, failure to warn, deceptive marketing, or related product liability theories.
At the center of many lawsuits is the allegation that the companies involved did not provide adequate warnings about the product’s dangers before it reached consumers.
Wrongful death claims can arise after a fatal overdose, respiratory collapse, or another acute medical emergency that is alleged to have been caused by kratom exposure.
The facts in these cases often turn on toxicology findings, product identification, medical examiner conclusions, and the specific warnings, if any, that accompanied the product.
TorHoerman Law is investigating claims involving serious injuries and deaths allegedly linked to kratom products sold without adequate warnings or with misleading safety representations.
These cases can involve liver damage, overdose, respiratory complications, wrongful death, and other severe medical outcomes that deserve close factual and medical review.

Our law firm approaches these matters with a proven track record in complex product liability litigation and a careful, evidence-driven approach to cases involving dangerous consumer products.
If you or your family believe a kratom product caused catastrophic injury or the loss of a loved one, contact TorHoerman Law for a free case review.
The legal landscape surrounding kratom has evolved rapidly, with numerous lawsuits filed against manufacturers and distributors.
A kratom lawsuit may name any company that helped make, market, distribute, or sell the product that allegedly caused the injury.
The exact defendants usually depend on the product’s path through the market, including who manufactured it, who branded it, who shipped it, and where it was purchased.
The FDA states it regularly takes action against companies selling unapproved kratom drug products, making false or misleading claims, and unlawfully marketing kratom dietary supplements and foods.
In some cases, a lawsuit may also focus on companies tied to stronger derivative products or enhanced formulations sold as kratom.
The FDA issued warning letters in 2025 to multiple companies marketing products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine, including tablets, gummies, drink mixes, and shots, and said some of those products were sometimes disguised or marketed as kratom.
Companies that may be named in a kratom lawsuit include:
Yes, kratom has been linked to several types of organ damage in reported medical cases and safety reviews.
The most commonly documented complication involves liver injury, including drug-induced liver damage that can cause jaundice, abdominal pain, fatigue, and abnormal liver enzyme levels.
Some reports also describe kidney complications, cardiovascular effects, and neurological symptoms occurring after kratom exposure.
These outcomes may be influenced by factors such as high doses, long-term use, concentrated extracts, or the presence of other substances.
Because kratom products vary widely in potency and composition, the risk and severity of organ damage can differ from one product or user to another.
Kratom use has been linked to a range of medical complications affecting multiple organ systems.
Health authorities have reported that some users experience serious adverse reactions after consuming kratom products, particularly with higher doses, concentrated extracts, or long-term use.
The severity of these reactions can vary depending on the product’s strength, the amount taken, and whether other substances were used at the same time. Reported cases include both short-term toxic reactions and longer-term health complications.
Health risks reported by kratom users include:
No, kratom is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for any medical use.
The FDA states that there are currently no FDA-approved drug products containing kratom or its primary compounds, including mitragynine or 7-hydroxymitragynine.
Some companies market kratom products with claims that they can alleviate pain, treat opioid withdrawal, or provide other health benefits.
Federal regulators say these claims have not been proven through the clinical testing required for drug approval.
The FDA issued warning letters to four companies for selling unapproved kratom products and essential oils to treat opioid use disorders.
Because kratom has not gone through the FDA’s safety and effectiveness review process, its medical uses, dosing standards, and long-term health effects remain uncertain.
7-OH is short for 7-hydroxymitragynine, a compound related to kratom that acts on opioid receptors and can produce strong opioid-like effects.
The FDA has described 7-OH as a concentrated byproduct of the kratom plant and says it is increasingly recognized as having abuse potential because of the way it binds to those receptors.
Although 7-hydroxymitragynine exists naturally in kratom in very small amounts, many commercial 7-OH products are concentrated formulations that are materially different from traditional kratom leaf powder or tea.
Federal regulators have drawn that distinction directly, stating that their recent enforcement push is aimed at 7-OH products rather than natural kratom leaf products.
These products are often sold in consumer-friendly forms such as tablets, gummies, drink mixes, and shots, which can make them look more like ordinary convenience items than potent psychoactive products.
The FDA and state health agencies have warned that 7-OH products have not been approved as safe or effective and are being sold in an unlawful, poorly regulated market.
Common places where 7-OH products are sold include:
The FDA has said some 7-OH products are marketed in ways that disguise them as kratom, even though they may contain concentrated levels of a much more potent compound.
Public health agencies have raised concerns because the products are widely available, easy to buy, and tied to reports of serious illness, dependence, and overdose.
For a consumer trying to understand the difference, the key point is that 7-OH is not just another name for ordinary kratom powder.
It refers to a specific alkaloid, often sold in concentrated commercial forms, that regulators now treat as a distinct and growing safety concern.
Kratom is not illegal under federal law in the United States at this time.
The Drug Enforcement Agency, more commonly called the DEA, states that kratom is not currently controlled under the Controlled Substances Act.
That does not mean kratom is fully lawful in every form or every setting.
The FDA says kratom is not lawfully marketed in the United States as a drug product, a dietary supplement, or a food additive in conventional food, and it also states there are no FDA-approved kratom products for medical use.
The DEA also classifies kratom as a Drug and Chemical of Concern, which means federal authorities view it as a substance with abuse or safety risks even though it has not been scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act.
State law can be different from federal law, and some states or local jurisdictions restrict, ban, or regulate kratom more aggressively than others.
Because of that, the legal answer can change depending on where the product is sold, possessed, or used.
The legal picture is also becoming more complicated because regulators are drawing sharper distinctions between traditional kratom products and newer concentrated products, including some 7-OH formulations.
Yes, several states and local jurisdictions in the United States have banned kratom.
Kratom is illegal in:
These states have classified kratom as a controlled substance under state law.
In many of these states, kratom’s active compounds, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, have been scheduled under state controlled substance laws even though the substance is not scheduled federally under the Controlled Substances Act.
In addition to statewide bans, some cities and counties in other states have enacted their own local prohibitions or restrictions on the sale or possession of kratom.
Kratom withdrawal can cause both physical and psychological symptoms, especially in people who use it regularly or at higher doses.
Prolonged, regular use may lead to withdrawal symptoms when use is stopped.
Reported withdrawal symptoms include irritability, anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, muscle aches, tremors, nausea, and mood changes.
The main health risk is that withdrawal can be distressing enough to interfere with sleep, daily functioning, and mental stability, and it may push some people back toward heavy kratom use or other substances.
Some people use kratom in an attempt to manage opioid withdrawal or cravings, which can complicate matters if dependence on kratom develops instead.
Symptoms are often described as milder than classic opioid withdrawal, but the severity can vary based on dose, duration of use, product strength, and whether other substances are involved.
Because commercial kratom products vary widely in composition and potency, withdrawal severity may be difficult to predict.
If you are experiencing withdrawal symptoms such as severe agitation, dehydration, chest symptoms, suicidal thoughts, or signs of polysubstance withdrawal, you should seek medical care promptly.
Kratom withdrawal can become harder to manage when it overlaps with other substance use or underlying mental health conditions.
Some people report using kratom to manage withdrawal or other substance-use symptoms, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has published national survey material showing kratom use in the United States and also offers treatment and recovery resources for substance use disorders.
At the same time, the FDA states there are no FDA-approved kratom drug products legally on the U.S. market and continues to warn consumers about serious adverse events linked to kratom.
The American Kratom Association is an advocacy organization that supports legal access to kratom and has published consumer guidelines about labeling and product selection, but those materials do not replace medical advice, toxicology evidence, or federal safety determinations.
If a person suffered organ damage, overdose, or another serious complication after using kratom for withdrawal or substance-use support, that history does not automatically prevent a product liability claim.
The key questions are still what product was used, how it was marketed, what warnings were given, and what the medical record shows about the injury.
Owner & Attorney - TorHoerman Law
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
In this case, we obtained a verdict of $495 Million for our client’s child who was diagnosed with Necrotizing Enterocolitis after consuming baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $20 Million for our client after they suffered a Toxic Tort Injury due to chemical exposure.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $103.8 Million for our client after they suffered a COX-2 Inhibitors Injury.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $4 Million for our client after they suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury while at daycare.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $2.8 Million for our client after they suffered an injury due to a Defective Heart Device.
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?