7-OH Lawsuit: Claims, Key Cases, and Who Can Be Sued

A 7-OH lawsuit is a wrongful death, personal injury, or consumer protection case brought against the manufacturers, distributors, or retailers of products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine, a concentrated opioid compound derived from kratom and sold at gas stations, smoke shops, and online as tablets, gummies, drink mixes, and shots. Families who lost loved ones after consuming these products, and consumers who became addicted or were seriously harmed, have filed cases in at least eleven states, with two early judgments already entered against sellers: $2.5 million in Washington and more than $11 million in Florida.¹

What a 7-OH Lawsuit Typically Claims

The core allegation in nearly every 7-OH case is a mismatch between what the product is and how it was sold. Plaintiffs argue that companies marketed a potent opioid as a safe, natural herbal supplement, often in bright packaging with fruit flavors, without warning consumers about addiction, respiratory depression, overdose, or death.

The legal theories plaintiffs have used fall into several categories:

Failure to warn, the most common claim, alleging manufacturers did not disclose the risk of addiction, respiratory depression, overdose, and death.
Design and manufacturing defect claims under strict products liability, alleging the products were inherently dangerous or improperly made.
Deceptive marketing and fraud, alleging companies labeled products as “safe,” “natural,” or “therapeutic” while concealing their opioid-like properties.
Negligence covering failures in design, testing, labeling, and sale.
Consumer protection violations under state deceptive trade practices statutes.

Some complaints also include breach of warranty, survival claims for pre-death pain and suffering, and negligence per se built on alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.¹ As of mid-2026, these cases have not been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding. Each one proceeds on its own in the court where it was filed.

What the Early Cases Have Looked Like

Coyne v. Society Botanicals: The First Major Verdict

The first major plaintiff verdict came in July 2023, when a Cowlitz County, Washington jury awarded $2.5 million to the family of Patrick Coyne, a 39-year-old man who died on June 28, 2020, after consuming a product called “Maeng Da tea” sold under the Kratom Divine brand. His widow, Sybil Coyne, sued Society Botanicals LLC and its owner, Wendi Rook. The jury found the company liable for negligence, selling a defective product, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unfair and deceptive business practices under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.² The award broke down to $1.4 million in non-economic damages, $1.1 million in economic damages, and a small amount for the consumer protection claim.³

Filippelli v. Grow LLC: An $11 Million Default Judgment

In the Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald Middlebrooks entered a default judgment of more than $11 million on July 27, 2023, against Grow LLC and its owner, Sean Michael Harder, who operated The Kratom Distro. The case was brought on behalf of the family of Krystal Talavera, a 39-year-old mother of four who died after consuming a kratom product. The defendants did not respond to the lawsuit, which is why the judgment entered by default. Judge Middlebrooks wrote that “no award of damages will ever be adequate.”⁴

Devera v. Advanced Nutrition: A Broader Theory

Filed in October 2023 in Georgia’s Cobb County State Court, this case tries a different approach. The plaintiff alleges a broad conspiracy among manufacturers, distributors, and the American Kratom Association to illegally import, adulterate, and sell kratom. The complaint accuses defendants of using opaque corporate structures to shield themselves from liability and asserts alter ego and veil-piercing theories to reach the individuals behind the corporate entities.¹

I.P. and J.M. v. Hundreds Premium LLC: A Recent Federal Filing

Filed in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, this case targets the company behind “Exotic Blue Magic Kratom.” The plaintiffs allege the company marketed the product without disclosing its potential to cause opioid-like dependency, bringing product liability, deceptive marketing, and failure-to-warn claims. The case is in its early stages.⁵

Who Can Be Sued

The named defendants in 7-OH cases include manufacturers of concentrated 7-OH products, the brand owners and distributors behind them, the owners of those companies personally (through alter ego and veil-piercing theories), and the retailers who sold the products.

Retailer liability is a live issue. In a separate proceeding tied to the Coyne case, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal of claims against two retailers, Chin 2 Corp. (doing business as C&C Speedy Mart) and JSC USA LLC, finding that the retailers had failed to prove the manufacturer was solvent enough to satisfy a judgment on its own.⁶ For a plaintiff whose family member bought a product at a convenience store and whose manufacturer has gone dark or has no assets, that ruling matters: the gas station or smoke shop may remain in the case.

Why Courts Are Treating These Products as Opioids

Understanding the product is central to the lawsuit. 7-hydroxymitragynine is an alkaloid found in trace amounts in natural kratom leaves, but the products on American shelves are synthetically enhanced or concentrated versions that the FDA characterizes as a “potent opioid” binding to the same brain receptors as morphine and fentanyl.¹ Pharmacological research confirms 7-OH is a mu-opioid receptor agonist that binds five to 22 times more strongly than mitragynine, kratom’s primary alkaloid, and produces more potent pain relief, sedation, and euphoria.⁷ FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has said 7-OH “is an opioid that can be more potent than morphine.”

Regular use of concentrated 7-OH can produce dependence and withdrawal symptoms similar to those seen with conventional opioids, and at high doses it can cause the full range of opioid toxicities, including life-threatening respiratory depression.⁷ The FDA has also warned that these products are “often falsely marketed as kratom” and are not lawful as dietary supplements, food additives, or drugs.⁸

The death data is substantial but comes with attribution caveats. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner has linked six fatal overdoses to 7-OH; many of those cases also involved alcohol, other medications, or illicit substances. The Ohio Department of Health documented over 200 unintentional overdose deaths linked to synthetic kratom between 2019 and 2024. Missouri’s Attorney General has cited at least 197 deaths in that state.⁹¹⁰¹¹ A persistent challenge in this data is separating deaths caused specifically by concentrated 7-OH from those involving natural kratom or other substances taken at the same time, and defendants have used that difficulty to contest causation.

Why State Law May Strengthen a Claim

Where a product was sold matters. At least 14 states have enacted laws placing limits on 7-OH concentration or prohibiting synthetic 7-OH entirely. Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, among others, cap 7-OH at 2% of a product’s total alkaloid composition and ban synthetic alkaloids.¹² A violation of one of these statutes can support a negligence per se theory, and recent enforcement actions give a sense of how far concentrations in retail products can run from the legal limit. In February 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued retailers operating as “Smokey’s Paradise,” alleging their kratom products contained 7-OH concentrations ranging from 86% to 96% of total alkaloid content, far above the 2% cap.¹³ An April 2026 Paxton suit against California-based online sellers alleged concentrations nearly 50 times the legal limit.¹⁴

Several states have gone further than caps. Florida classified isolated and concentrated 7-OH as a Schedule I controlled substance through an emergency rule effective August 13, 2025.¹⁵ Ohio followed with an emergency rule in December 2025 made permanent in May 2026.¹⁶ California declared it illegal to manufacture or sell any food, dietary supplement, or drug containing kratom or 7-OH under the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.¹⁷ Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Vermont, and Wisconsin have banned all kratom products outright by scheduling both mitragynine and 7-OH.¹²

Where Federal Law Stands

Federal scheduling has not caught up to the state activity. On July 29, 2025, the FDA formally recommended that the DEA classify certain concentrated 7-OH products as Schedule I controlled substances, the same category as heroin and LSD. The recommendation applies specifically to synthetic and concentrated 7-OH, not to botanical kratom leaf.¹ As of mid-2026, the DEA has not initiated formal rulemaking, so 7-OH remains unscheduled at the federal level.¹⁸

That gap has not stopped federal enforcement. In June 2025, the FDA issued warning letters to seven companies for illegally marketing 7-OH products, including Shaman Botanicals, Thang Botanicals (behind the 7OHMZ brand), My Smoke Wholesale, Relax Relief Rejuvenate Trading, Royal Diamond Imports, Hydroxie, and 7Tabz Retail.⁸ On December 2, 2025, U.S. Marshals seized approximately 73,000 units of 7-OH products valued at roughly $1 million from three Kansas City-area warehouses operated by Shaman Botanicals LLC and Relax Relief Rejuvenate Trading LLC. A civil forfeiture complaint filed in the Western District of Missouri alleged the firms kept distributing after the FDA warning letters.¹⁹ The FDA has also rejected all six new drug applications submitted for kratom, meaning 7-OH has no lawful path to market as a drug.¹ Each of those facts gives plaintiffs ammunition on notice, knowledge, and the question of whether a product should have been on the shelf at all.

What to Know If You’re Considering a 7-OH Claim

Preserve the product and the packaging if any remains, along with receipts, order confirmations, or photos showing where and when it was purchased. Medical records, autopsy or medical examiner reports, and toxicology results are central to connecting the harm to 7-OH, especially given the attribution challenges in the public death data.

The identity of the defendants matters as much as the facts of the harm. Some manufacturers operate through small LLCs with limited assets, which is why plaintiffs have reached for veil-piercing theories against individual owners and why the Washington appellate ruling keeping retailers in the case is significant. Where state law caps 7-OH concentration or bans synthetic 7-OH outright, lab testing of the specific product can establish a statutory violation that strengthens the civil claim.

These cases proceed individually, not as a consolidated MDL, so timelines and strategy vary by jurisdiction. State wrongful death statutes set who may sue and the deadline to file, and those deadlines are shorter than many people assume. Plaintiff attorneys handling 7-OH cases expect filings to continue growing as more states ban the compound and more deaths are attributed to it.

1
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Takes Steps To Restrict 7-OH Opioid Products Threatening American Consumers
2
The News Tribune. Washington Jury Awards $2.5 Million in Kratom Death Case
3
Apple Valley News Now. Washington Jury Awards $2.5 Million in Kratom Death Case
4
CBS 12. Judge Awards $11 Million in Wrongful Death Lawsuit
5
WCAX. 7-OH: FDA Pushes Ban on Substance Sold at Gas Stations, Smoke Shops
6
Washington State Courts. Coyne v. Chin 2 Corp., No. 57409-8-II
7
University of Virginia School of Medicine. 7-Hydroxymitragynine Toxicology Review
8
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Issues Warning Letters to Firms Marketing Products Containing 7-Hydroxymitragynine
9
CBS News Los Angeles. Los Angeles County Overdose Deaths Linked to Kratom Compound
10
Statehouse News Bureau. Gov. DeWine Orders State Board To Ban Synthetic Kratom Immediately
11
KCUR. Judge Denies Missouri Attorney General’s Bid To Halt 7-OH Kratom Sales by American Shaman
12
Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association. Kratom: Summary of State Laws
13
Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Paxton Sues Kratom Retailers Deceptively Marketing and Selling Products
14
KERA News. Ken Paxton Sues California Kratom Retailers
15
Florida Attorney General. Attorney General Uthmeier Files Emergency Rule Immediately Removing Dangerous 7-OH Products
16
Ohio Board of Pharmacy. Consumer and Retailer Notice: Sale and Possession of Kratom in Ohio
17
Office of the Governor of California. Governor Newsom Announces 95% Compliance With Prohibition of Illegal Kratom Products
18
Prevention Technology Transfer Center Network. Kratom and 7-Hydroxymitragynine Federal and Iowa Legal Status
19
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Seizes Unlawful 7-OH Products From Three Warehouses