Cheswick v. Mitra-9 Brands, LLC, 2026 WL 2949413, No. 1:25-CV-6795-LTS
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2026)

The court allowed NY consumer protection claims against a kratom
seller to proceed. Kratom is “a plant-derived substance that affects the human
body in a manner similar to opioids.” Mitra-9 allegedly touts the “unique
benefits” of its kratom products, advertising them as “caffeine-free,
non-alcoholic, low-calorie[ ]” “plant-based beverages” that “compliment[ ][sic]
active lifestyles every day,” “help [consumers] sail through [their] workday or
support [their] post-workout routine,” and “support[ ] overall vitality and
well-being, fostering focus and a serene approach to life’s challenges.” It
allegedly advertises “the unique benefits of [its] kratom,” which comes from
“the verdant rainforests of Southeast Asia” and factors into their “specially
designed formula.” This so-called “Mitra9 difference” makes the products “an
upgrade” from “ordinary supplement drinks” and a “perfect way to shake things
up.”

However, kratom allegedly contains alkaloids that, depending
on the dose, can produce either stimulating or sedating effects by interacting
with numerous receptors in the brain. This includes the brain’s mu-opioid
receptor, which is the receptor that “produces the most addictive or
habit-forming effects.” It is allegedly similar to morphine in the risks it
poses of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal symptoms,
as well as in the fact that repeat users need to consume increasingly large
doses to achieve the same effects. Sudden cessation of kratom use can allegedly
produce severe, opioid-like withdrawal symptoms, including “irritability,
anxiety, difficulty concentrating, depression, sleep disturbance, including
restless legs, tearing up, runny nose, muscle and bone pain, muscle spasms,
diarrhea, decreased appetite, chills, inability to control temperature, extreme
dysphoria, and malaise.”

Nonetheless, most United States consumers allegedly “do not
know what kratom is and have no idea how addictive it is.” Mitra-9, despite allegedly
knowing the truth, does not warn them, but instead uses packaging that
resembles that of commonplace products like “5-Hour Energy” shots and
caffeinated energy drinks like “Redbull” and “Celsius.” The named plaintiff
initially purchased Mitra-9 Products as an “alternative for pain relief,” but,
after consuming them for several months, he began experiencing withdrawal
symptoms including “cold sweats, anxiety, joint aches, extreme irritability,
restless leg syndrome, and insomnia.”

The plaintiff pled on information and belief that Mitra-9
“interacted with growers and distributors in Southeast Asia who have disclosed
the addictive nature of kratom”; “received numerous user reports about the
addictive potential of kratom in the United States”; and possessed “studies
regarding kratom addiction.”

The court found that a price premium theory of injury was
plausible. It was logical that the class “suffered economic injury because they
… would have paid substantially less for [the Products], if they had known
that the Products posed a serious risk for addiction.” This was not the same as
pleading they never would have purchased the relevant products absent the
deception, which is apparently not enough to plead injury.

“Where, as here, the allegedly deceptive act involves an
omission, the plaintiff must show that ‘the business alone possesses material
information that is relevant to the consumer and fails to provide this
information,’ or that the plaintiff could not ‘reasonably have obtained the
relevant information [he] now claim[s] the [defendant] failed to provide.’
”  This latter path was plausibly pled in
light of allegations about the public’s general lack of familiarity with
kratom, the fact that kratom was “marketed as providing benefits without
disclosure of its addictive potential,” the inaccessibility or
incomprehensibility of the medical literature to an average consumer, the
unlikelihood that consumers would inquire about kratom when “purchasing from
third parties or online,” and packaging that mimics that of well-known
supplements and caffeinated energy drinks. “Within this broader landscape, a
reasonable consumer contemplating a purchase of Defendant’s Products—which
Defendant markets and packages as though they are innocuous health
supplements—would have no reason to suspect or inquire whether they contained an
opioid-like substance with serious addictive risks.”

Fraud by omission claims also survived.

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/10/consumer-suit-against-kratom-seller.html