Corporate Greed Case Study: MRSS Inc. & Its Impact on American Consumers
tldr; A lawsuit alleges that MRSS Inc., a Georgia-based company, knowingly manufactured and sold a dangerously addictive, opioid-like drug called tianeptine under the brand name “ZaZa”. The product, deceptively marketed as a harmless dietary supplement to make users “Feel Good” and “Be Happy,” has allegedly caused devastating addiction, financial ruin, and severe physical and psychological harm.
Please continue reading to understand the full scope of the allegations and the systemic failures that allowed this product to flood gas stations and corner stores across America.
Introduction
A user on a public internet forum described spending $30,000 on a product sold at a local store, an addiction that cost them five maxed-out credit cards, two pawned car titles, and their wedding band. They stole from their son and their church’s offering plate. The addiction became so devastating that, after their wife left and their son stopped speaking to them, they tried to end their own life.
This harrowing account is not about a prescription painkiller or an illegal street drug. It is about a product called ZaZa, sold in bottles at gas stations and convenience stores across the United States. A class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleges that the manufacturer, MRSS Inc., intentionally created and sold a product it knew was highly addictive, profiting from a business model that preys on the vulnerable.
The case of Bemis v. MRSS Inc. pulls back the curtain on the dark side of deregulation and profit-maximization. It reveals a system where a substance known as “gas station heroin” can be sold as a cheerful “dietary supplement,” causing immense public harm while its creators reap substantial profits. This is a story of corporate misconduct enabled by a system that prioritizes corporate interests over public health and safety.
Inside the Allegations: A Product Designed for Addiction
The lawsuit alleges that MRSS Inc. engaged in a calculated scheme to market and sell its ZaZa products—ZaZa Red, ZaZa White, and ZaZa Silver—while concealing their true nature. The core of the complaint is that these products contain tianeptine, a psychoactive drug that functions as a full µ-receptor opioid agonist, similar in its mechanism to heroin, oxycodone, and fentanyl. Tianeptine is not approved for any medical use in the United States.
According to the legal filing, MRSS intentionally formulated ZaZa to be extremely physically and psychologically addictive. MRSS knew that tianeptine creates a euphoric high and has a short half-life, which leads to rapid and severe withdrawal, increasing the risk of dependency. Consumers, believing they were taking a harmless supplement to “Feel Good,” instead found themselves trapped in a cycle of addiction, compelled to buy more and more of the product simply to avoid the agony of withdrawal.
The complaint states that MRSS marketed ZaZa as a dietary supplement that provides mental and social benefits. This marketing actively concealed the product’s debilitating effects and significant addiction risks. The lawsuit argues that this deception was intentional, designed to create a dependent customer base and maximize profits from repeat sales.
| Date | Event |
| Approx. 2017 | MRSS Inc. begins manufacturing and selling ZaZa products. |
| 2014-2017 | The CDC observes a significant increase in calls to U.S. poison control centers related to tianeptine exposure, rising from 11 calls in the first 14 years of the 2000s to 207 in just four years. |
| January 9, 2018 | A user reports trying a tianeptine product for the first time, leading to a two-year, eight-month addiction costing approximately $30,000. |
| February 10, 2022 | The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues a public warning about tianeptine, noting it is not approved for any medical purpose. |
| February 2024 | The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issues its own warning regarding the emerging risks of tianeptine. |
| January 2025 | The plaintiff, Ronald Bemis, purchases ZaZa products in Illinois, relying on the product’s labeling, which failed to disclose the risks. |
| April 1, 2025 | The plaintiff mails a notice letter to MRSS Inc. headquarters, informing them of its breach of warranty. |
| June 23, 2025 | A class-action complaint is filed against MRSS Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. |
Regulatory Capture & Loopholes
The rise of products like ZaZa highlights critical failures in the American regulatory system. Tianeptine exists in a legal gray area. While the FDA has not approved it for medical use, and the DEA has issued warnings, it is not universally banned across the country, creating a patchwork of state-by-state legality that corporations can easily exploit.
The lawsuit points out that while numerous states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Michigan, have banned or severely restricted the sale of tianeptine, it remains available in many others. This lack of a cohesive federal response allows companies like MRSS Inc. to continue profiting from a substance that other developed nations have deemed too dangerous for public consumption. Countries such as Turkey, Russia, and Singapore have already banned or restricted tianeptine.
This regulatory environment is a feature of neoliberal capitalism, where deregulation is framed as a pathway to economic growth. The result is a system where federal agencies like the FDA and DEA issue warnings but lack the authority or will to implement outright bans, leaving consumers vulnerable. Corporations operate within these loopholes, knowing that by the time regulators catch up, immense profits will have already been made.
Profit-Maximization at All Costs
The business model of MRSS Inc., as described in the legal complaint, is a prime example of profit-maximization overriding any sense of corporate social responsibility. The lawsuit alleges that the company “knew and intentionally designed the ZaZa products to prey on users and take advantage of ZaZa products’ great potential to addict users”. This was not an accidental side effect; it was the core of the business strategy.
MRSS marketed ZaZa with promises to make users “Feel Good” and “Be Happy,” appealing to people seeking relief. At the same time, it allegedly gave out free samples of ZaZa with no warning of its addictive properties. This act is understood by customers as an indication of safety, luring them into trying a product that could create a long-term, devastating dependency.
Once addicted, customers are no longer making a choice; they are compelled to continue purchasing the product to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms. As one user described, “I’m working 7 days a week just to keep up with the habit and I’m tired I can’t keep doing this”. This cycle of dependency ensures a steady stream of revenue, a business model built on human suffering.
The Economic Fallout
The financial consequences of this alleged corporate misconduct are borne almost entirely by the victims. The lawsuit is filled with accounts of devastating economic hardship. One individual reported spending about $30,000 over two years, maxing out five credit cards, pawning car titles, taking out high-interest loans, and running up a $6,000 credit bill at the store that introduced them to the drug.
This is a direct transfer of wealth from ordinary individuals, many of whom are financially and emotionally vulnerable, to the coffers of a corporation. The lawsuit seeks to recover this money for a nationwide class of consumers who were harmed. The total amount of money spent by thousands of addicted users represents a significant economic extraction from communities into the hands of a single corporate entity.
Under a system of late-stage capitalism, such predatory models can flourish. The financial ruin of a customer is not a bug in the system; it is a feature of a business that profits from dependency. The more a customer spends, the more successful the business is, regardless of the human cost.
Public Health Risks
The complaint against MRSS Inc. paints a grim picture of a public health crisis fueled by corporate greed. The CDC’s finding that tianeptine-related poison control calls skyrocketed from 11 between 2000 and 2013 to 207 between 2014 and 2017 indicates a rapidly growing public health threat. The symptoms reported—mimicking opioid toxicity and withdrawal—place a burden on emergency services and public health systems.
The lawsuit explicitly states that in selling an addictive product without warning, “Defendant has created an unreasonable health hazard”. The withdrawal symptoms associated with tianeptine are severe and include delirium, agitation, insomnia, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, and hypertension. These are serious medical conditions that unsuspecting consumers are left to face alone.
This case exemplifies how the pursuit of profit under neoliberal capitalism can directly generate public health emergencies. By marketing an opioid-like substance as a benign supplement, MRSS Inc. allegedly contributed to the broader opioid crisis, creating a new generation of addicts through deception and feeding a cycle of dependency that strains families and communities.
Exploitation of Consumers
The business model alleged in the lawsuit is one of classic exploitation. It begins by targeting consumers looking for help and happiness and ends by trapping them in a cycle of addiction and sickness. The complaint argues that consumers were “blindsided by adverse effects from what they thought was a harmless supplement”.
This exploitation is made possible by a profound information asymmetry. MRSS Inc., as the manufacturer, allegedly possessed “superior knowledge” about tianeptine’s chemical properties and addictive potential. The average consumer, on the other hand, sees a professionally packaged product on a store shelf promising positive feelings. They have no reason to suspect it functions like heroin.
The lawsuit asserts that once consumers begin buying ZaZa, “they often cannot stop and are likely to continue to purchase ZaZa products, even when they don’t want to”. This is the definition of an exploitative relationship, where one party’s vulnerability is leveraged for another’s financial gain. The system of consumer capitalism, which encourages impulse buys and trusts corporations to self-regulate, sets the stage for this kind of abuse.
Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined
The harm caused by products like ZaZa extends beyond the individual user. The narratives included in the complaint reveal lives and relationships destroyed. One user describes their addiction ruining their relationship with their family, while another details how it led to losing friends after borrowing money that could never be repaid.
The proliferation of “gas station heroin” has a corrosive effect on communities. It normalizes the sale of dangerous, mind-altering substances in everyday locations like corner stores and gas stations, making them easily accessible. This contributes to the societal burden of addiction, which includes strained family relationships, loss of productivity, and increased demand on social and medical support systems.
While MRSS Inc. is based in Atlanta, Georgia, the impact of its products is felt in towns and cities across America. The profits are concentrated in one location, while the social and economic costs are distributed widely, an all-to-common pattern in a globalized capitalist economy.
The PR Machine: Corporate Spin Tactics
MRSS Inc. allegedly employed sophisticated marketing and labeling tactics to conceal the dangers of its products. The packaging for ZaZa is designed to look like a typical dietary supplement, using phrases like “EXTRA STRENGTH” and “MAX”. This presentation is a deliberate form of public relations, designed to inspire consumer trust and downplay risk.
The back of the bottle contains disclaimers that appear to offer transparency while actually serving as a tool of deception. A statement like “The Food and Drug Administration has neither reviewed these statements nor approved this product for consumption” is paired with the directive “Direction For Use: Research Purposes Only”. This language creates a veneer of legal compliance while doing nothing to inform the consumer of the product’s true, highly addictive nature.
This is a classic example of corporate spin. Instead of providing clear, honest warnings about addiction and withdrawal, the company uses confusing and contradictory language to obscure the truth. The lawsuit argues that if the material facts about ZaZa’s addictive potential were disclosed, reasonable consumers would never purchase it.
Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed
The lawsuit against MRSS Inc. is a microcosm of the larger issue of wealth inequality in America. It describes a scenario where a corporation allegedly generates “substantial profits” by addicting consumers, many of whom are driven into financial desperation. This is a direct mechanism for transferring wealth from the general populace, particularly the vulnerable, to corporate owners.
The legal filing seeks the “disgorgement” of these profits, arguing that the company was unjustly enriched. The stories of people pawning their possessions and going into debt to fund their addiction stand in steep contrast to the image of a successful corporation. This dynamic is central to the critique of late-stage capitalism, where corporate greed is incentivized, and the resulting social costs are ignored.
MRSS Inc. knew that disclosing the addictive nature of its products “would adversely affect its profits”. This calculation, prioritizing profits over human well-being, is a hallmark of a system that has become detached from ethical considerations.
Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation
The fact that tianeptine is banned or heavily restricted in numerous other countries provides a powerful indictment of the American regulatory system. Nations like Turkey, Armenia, Ukraine, Singapore, and Russia have recognized the dangers of tianeptine and taken decisive action to protect their citizens.
The continued legality of tianeptine sales in many parts of the United States shows how neoliberal policies of deregulation and free-market ideology leave the American public exposed to harms that other governments will not tolerate. The lawsuit implicitly asks why a substance deemed too dangerous for consumers in other parts of the world can be sold freely in American gas stations.
This global context reveals that the problem is not a lack of knowledge about tianeptine’s dangers, but a lack of political will to act against corporate interests. It shows a pattern where American capitalism prioritizes market freedom over public safety, creating opportunities for predatory companies to thrive where they would be outlawed elsewhere.
Corporate Accountability Fails the Public
The existence of this class-action lawsuit is evidence of a systemic failure in corporate accountability. Private citizens are forced to take on the burden of litigation because public regulatory bodies have not been able to stop the harm. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to halt the sale of ZaZa or, at minimum, to force MRSS to provide adequate warnings about its product.
This remedy is being sought years after the dangers of tianeptine became apparent to health officials. The complaint argues that legal damages alone are inadequate to address the threat of future harm, especially given the product’s addictive nature which makes future purchases likely. This highlights a justice system that is often reactive rather than preventative, allowing corporations to profit from dangerous products until challenged in court.
The call for disgorgement of profits and a full refund for consumers is an attempt to claw back the financial gains of the alleged misconduct. Yet, without direct and swift regulatory action, the framework that allowed this to happen remains intact, ready for the next corporation to exploit.
Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Plausibly Legal
MRSS Inc.’s product labeling is a masterclass in legal minimalism, a strategy where a company adheres to the letter of the law while violating its spirit. By including fine-print disclaimers such as “Research Purposes Only” and “NOT FOR SALE TO MINORS,” MRSS creates a shield of plausible deniability. These statements are legally tactical, intended to shift responsibility for misuse onto the consumer.
However, these minimalist warnings are placed on a product that is aggressively marketed as a way to “Feel Good” and “Be Happy”. The lawsuit alleges this is a deliberate deception. MRSS downplays the severe risks with vague language while the product’s front-facing branding sends an entirely different message of safety and wellness. This behavior illustrates how corporations in a neoliberal system treat legal compliance not as an ethical floor but as a strategic game to be won.
Monetizing Harm: When Victimization Becomes a Revenue Model
The core allegation in the complaint is that MRSS Inc.’s business model is not just negligent, but predatory; it directly monetizes the harm it creates. The product’s addictive nature is not an unfortunate side effect but the very engine of its profitability. Once a user becomes dependent, they are forced to make repeat purchases to stave off painful withdrawal symptoms.
Every dollar spent by an addicted individual flows directly to MRSS Inc.’s bottom line, turning their suffering into corporate revenue. This transforms the consumer from a customer into a captive asset. The lawsuit highlights this by pointing out that after becoming addicted, users “are likely to purchase the product again in the future, unless proper warnings are given and/or the product is taken off the market”.
This business strategy mirrors one of the most cynical tendencies of late-stage capitalism: finding ways to extract profit from crisis, dependency, and human vulnerability. The harm is not an externality to be managed but the central product being sold.
This Is the System Working as Intended
The case of Bemis v. MRSS Inc. should not be viewed as an outlier or an example of a system failing. It is an example of the system of deregulated, profit-driven capitalism working precisely as designed. When profit is structurally prioritized above all else, it is predictable that companies will emerge to exploit any and every loophole for financial gain.
The complaint details a company that identified a market (people seeking mental relief), located a product in a regulatory gray area (tianeptine), and marketed it deceptively to build a dependent customer base. The resulting public health damage and personal ruin are the logical outcomes of a system that outsources moral responsibility to the market.
The slow reaction from government agencies, the need for private citizens to file costly lawsuits, and the focus on after-the-fact damages are not system failures. They are features of a political and economic ideology that systematically defangs regulation and empowers corporate actors to police themselves, a task they predictably fail when profits are on the line.
Conclusion
At its heart, this lawsuit is about the devastating human cost of unchecked corporate greed. It is about individuals who, seeking a little help to “Feel Good,” were allegedly led into a nightmarish cycle of addiction, financial ruin, and despair by a company that saw their vulnerability as a profit opportunity. The stories of families torn apart, savings depleted, and lives nearly lost are a testament to the real-world consequences of selling “gas station heroin” as a harmless supplement.
The legal battle against MRSS Inc. is more than a dispute over a single product. It is a challenge to a system that allows such predatory behavior to flourish in the first place. It underscores the profound failure of American consumer protection in an age of deregulation and highlights the urgent need for accountability that places public health above corporate profit.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
Based entirely on the allegations and evidence presented within the four corners of the legal complaint, this lawsuit appears to be exceptionally serious. The claims are not abstract or trivial; they are grounded in specific, verifiable facts and supported by evidence from public health authorities.
The complaint cites warnings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the DEA, lending significant credibility to the asserted dangers of tianeptine.
It details the specific pharmacological mechanism of the drug, identifying it as a full µ-receptor opioid agonist, which explains its addictive potential and severe withdrawal effects. Furthermore, the inclusion of harrowing, detailed personal testimonies from users provides a powerful and deeply disturbing picture of the real-world harm caused by ZaZa products.
The legal claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent failure to warn, and unjust enrichment are directly and logically derived from these strong factual allegations. This is not a frivolous action; it is a substantive legal challenge to alleged corporate misconduct that has resulted in severe public harm.
đź’ˇ Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
NOTE:
This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:
- The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
- Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
- The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
- My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.
All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.
Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)
Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....
