A. v. Thang Botanicals, Inc.
3:24-cv-07029
N.D. Cal.Mar 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs purchased 7-OH Tablets, a kratom-derived product manufactured by Thang Botanicals, alleging the packaging failed to warn about high addiction risks.
- Plaintiffs became addicted, suffered withdrawal symptoms, and claimed they would not have purchased the products had they known of the addiction risk.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action, asserting both nationwide and state-specific consumer protection, warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations, arguing, among other things, lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiffs conceded certain claims (injunctive relief, False Advertising Law, unjust enrichment), and agreed to limit their claims to California, Oregon, and Nevada.
- The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend most claims, except to add new claims or parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Injunctive Relief | Not contested; concede lack of standing | Plaintiffs aware of risks, so no standing | Dismissed for lack of standing |
| Duty to Disclose Addiction Risk | Omission relates to an unreasonable safety hazard; exclusive knowledge | No duty; website/label disclaimer sufficed | Sufficiently alleged duty; motion denied |
| Deception of Reasonable Consumer | Packaging misleading for not warning of risks | Website disclaimer sufficient for notice | Factual question; survives dismissal |
| Nationwide Class Claims | Limited claims to CA, OR, NV | Lack standing for nationwide; violates due process | Nationwide claims dismissed/struck |
| FAL & Unjust Enrichment | Not opposed; concede | Not cognizable, wrong basis | Dismissed |
| Implied Warranty | Label omits warning, so not merchantable | No affirmative promises on label | Dismissed; lack of factual basis |
| Fraud by Omission | Claims under plaintiffs' state law | Vague law basis, website gave notice | Dismissed for pleading deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (sets standards for judicial notice and incorporation by reference)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (defines Article III standing requirements)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (motion to dismiss consumer claims is rare; reasonable consumer standard)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (incorporation by reference doctrine)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (federal jurisdiction and standing requirements)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend factors)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (presumption in favor of granting leave to amend)