News · 2026-07-28
Baltimore Sues Kratom Makers for Deceptive Trade Practices Under City Ordinance
Source: Courthouse News Service
Why it matters
Baltimore's lawsuit targets the O.P.M.S. brand and related entities under city consumer protection law — a novel legal approach that operates independently of state or federal regulation and could serve as a model for other municipalities.
The big picture
The lawsuit, filed by Baltimore City Solicitor Ebony M. Thompson, accuses kratom companies and the entrepreneurs behind the O.P.M.S. brand of engaging in deceptive trade practices and using a network of shell companies to obscure liability. Maryland effectively banned kratom statewide as of July 1, 2026, under a state Kratom Consumer Protection Act that limits sales to FDA-approved products only. Baltimore's action is the latest in a wave of municipal and state lawsuits against kratom manufacturers — following the Missouri attorney general, California, and a Virginia civil conspiracy case — that reflect growing legal exposure for the industry beyond regulatory action.
Key findings
- Baltimore's mayor and city council filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Dallas-based Open LLC, Pur Botanicals LLC, and other defendants behind the O.P.M.S. kratom brand.
- The complaint alleges 'callous disregard for public health' and accuses defendants of using shell companies to avoid liability.
- Maryland's state KCPA, effective July 1, 2026, allows kratom sales only with FDA approval — effectively banning it statewide.
- The Baltimore suit is based solely on local consumer protection ordinance and explicitly makes no federal law claims.
- A federal judge in Virginia allowed a civil conspiracy claim against the same O.P.M.S. principals to stand in a separate consumer addiction lawsuit.
What they say
"Defendants have employed a web of shell companies and alter egos, and use multiple business names, assumed names, and trade names to hide the scope of their operation and to avoid liability for their actions," the plaintiffs allege in the complaint.
Bottom line
Baltimore's municipal lawsuit demonstrates that kratom manufacturers face legal liability not just from federal regulators but from local governments invoking consumer protection law — a legal front that doesn't depend on DEA scheduling.