BALTIMORE (CN) – Baltimore’s mayor and city council are suing the manufacturers and distributors of multiple kratom products, claiming their marketing and sale is illegal under the city’s consumer protection ordinance.
“Defendants’ actions demonstrate a callous disregard for the public health, safety and welfare of the city’s residents,” the plaintiffs say in complaint filed in Baltimore City District Court.
They accuse a number of kratom companies and the John Doe defendants of “engaging in unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practices in the sale or offer for sale of Kratom Products.”
Filed by Baltimore City Attorney Ebony M. Thompson along with Gordon Wolf and Carney, Chartered, of Baltimore County, and a group of attorneys from Grant & Eisenhofer, PA of Wilmington Delaware, the lawsuit is the latest blow to the kratom industry, which faces tighter regulation and numerous lawsuits by relatives of people sold by the online service and numerous lawsuits by people killed by court services. the stations.
Kratom is a South Asian tree whose leaves are psychoactive when chewed or brewed into tea, offering users a choice when taken in small doses, but creating a euphoric feeling when ingested at higher doses. It is addictive and has been touted as an addiction medicine for opioid users, as its main active alkaloid, mitragynine, binds to the same receptors in the brain as opioids.
The federal Food and Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Agency moved to classify kratom as an illegal drug a decade ago, but the industry rallied to prevent it, so it occupies a gray area of federal law: illegal to import, but not illegal to sell or possess. Many states have banned it and others have moved to regulate it, often led by the American Kratom Association, a nonprofit advocacy organization whose chief lobbyist, Mac Haddow, is pushing an industry-friendly model law called the Kratom Consumer Protection Act.
Haddow did not immediately respond to a request for comment. City attorneys also did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening.
Maryland effectively banned the sale of kratom statewide as of July 1 under the state’s Kratom Consumer Protection Act, which would allow sales of kratom only if the FDA approves its use as a drug or a dietary ingredient.
The Baltimore lawsuit names the defendants, Dallas-based Open, LLC, Pur Botanicals LLC of Marietta, Georgia, and other unnamed defendants as the corporate cats paws of Mark Jennings, Peyton Palaio and Mark Daniel James Reilly, the longtime kratom entrepreneur behind the specialty OPMSkra brand. extracts of kratom’s active ingredients that are said to relieve pain and/or create euphoria.
“Defendants have used a network of shell companies and alter egos, and use numerous business names, assumed names and trade names to conceal the purpose of their operation and avoid responsibility for their actions,” the plaintiffs say in the lawsuit. “Defendants constitute JOpen’s alter egos and, therefore, the corporate veil must also be pierced for purposes of personal judgment with respect to Defendants.”
Jennings, Palaio and Reilly are also facing a lawsuit in Virginia filed by a consumer who became addicted to their products. Last month a federal judge there is allowed a civil conspiracy claim against them to stay.
Earlier this year, Missouri’s attorney general sued kratom distributors.
In May, California sued a kratom distributor under that state’s ban, alleging the company moved and sold the products after an inspector “sealed” them and taped them to the shelf where they were.
The city plaintiffs’ suit goes to great lengths to say what it isn’t: It’s not a class action and there are no claims involving federal law: “No issue of federal constitutional, statutory or regulatory law is raised here — either directly, indirectly or by implication. All issues raised here relate to this Baltimore City issue or to the national significance of Baltimore City; impact, and no issue raised in this case affects the federal system as a whole.”
It’s also not based on the statewide ban on retail kratom sales, which carries a $1,000 fine for a first offense.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and court decisions across the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
