Six American states have written a statute called a Kratom Consumer Protection Act into their law. Florida’s is a minimum age and a rulemaking clause, and that is the entire section. Maryland’s runs to an adulteration ban, a potency ceiling, a labelling schedule and a page of advertising restrictions down to what may appear on a package. Oklahoma’s sets a potency ceiling half the size of Maryland’s. Oregon’s has no labelling requirement at all.
Utah had one too, and dropped the name. On 6 May 2026 its chapter stopped being the Kratom Consumer Protection Act and became the Kratom Regulation Act, in the same amendment that made it the most demanding kratom law in the country.
So the name is not the law. “KCPA state” is a phrase that circulates as though it described a package of safeguards, and the statutes carrying it have almost nothing in common beyond an age. Below is what twelve state statutes actually say, each read in that state’s own official publication of its code.
Corrected 2 September 2026. This piece originally counted five states. Arizona is a sixth, and the correction is worth understanding rather than just noting. Section 2 of Arizona’s Laws 2019, chapter 156 says the act “may be cited and known as the ‘Kratom Consumer Protection Act’”, and it was approved on 30 April 2019, which makes it the oldest of the six. It was missed because that short title lives in uncodified session law: it is not in the Arizona Revised Statutes, so a search of the code returns nothing. Oklahoma’s is the oldest short title that sits in a state’s codified statutes. The table row for Arizona now reads “In the session law” rather than “No”.
A table of statutes understates any state that regulates by rule, and Florida is the case in point. Its row below is accurate about section 500.92, which really does contain nothing but an age limit and a rulemaking clause. It is not a fair summary of Florida law. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services used that rulemaking power in Rule 5K-4.030, in force since 10 January 2024, which requires a food establishment permit at $650 a year, imposes labelling and misbranding rules, bans vending machine sales, and carries fines of up to $5,000 per violation. And since 18 August 2026 an Attorney General emergency rule has placed 7-hydroxymitragynine and four related compounds in Schedule I, capped at 1 milligram per gram or millilitre with a 100:1 mitragynine floor. On the five components below, Florida’s statute scores one and Florida’s law scores five. Our Florida page reads the rules rather than the statute.
The five components, and how far they vary
Reading the enacted texts side by side, five things recur.
A minimum age. Every kratom-regulating statute we read sets one. Four set 18 and eight set 21, and the split does not follow any other feature of the law.
A labelling requirement. Eight of the twelve have one, and they ask for different things. Arizona, Maryland and Utah all require the package to state the amount of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. Oklahoma requires that plus the total alkaloid content, per serving and per package, an ingredient list in descending order of predominance, the vendor’s street address, the number of servings that can safely be consumed in a day, and a calibrated measuring device with liquid products under eight fluid ounces that contain more than three servings. Texas asks only for use directions and a serving size. Colorado asks for the manufacturer’s identity and address and a full ingredient list.
An adulteration ban. Nine of the twelve reach adulteration in some form, and the forms are not interchangeable. Arizona, Maryland and Texas each carry two limbs, one for adulteration with a dangerous non-kratom substance and one for contamination. Nevada’s has neither qualifier: NRS 597.998(2) reaches a kratom product “that is adulterated with a substance that affects the quality or strength of the kratom product to such a degree as to render the kratom product injurious to a consumer.” Colorado’s is narrower still and names its targets, reaching products “adulterated with fentanyl or any other controlled substance” listed in its own schedules.
A ceiling on 7-hydroxymitragynine, and a ban on synthetic alkaloids. This is the provision that matters most given what is now sold under kratom’s name, and it is where the states diverge furthest. Utah caps 7-OH at 0.4 percent of the total kratom alkaloid composition. Oklahoma and Virginia set one percent, Virginia adding a second limit of one milligram per serving. Arizona, Maryland and Texas set two percent of the alkaloid fraction. Six of the twelve have no ceiling at all.
Registration. Oregon requires processors to register with the Department of Revenue, a tax agency rather than a health one. Utah requires processors, retailers and every individual product to be registered, and will not register a retailer unless it is licensed as a retail tobacco specialty business.
Twelve states, as the statutes read
Each row was read in that state’s own official publication of its code on 31 August 2026, and ordered by how many of the five components the statute contains.
| State | Statute | Named a KCPA | Age | Label | Adulteration | 7-OH ceiling | Registration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utah | Utah Code §§ 4-45-102 to 4-45-108 | Until 6 May 2026 | 21 | Amounts of mitragynine and 7-OH | Via the product definition | 0.4% of total kratom alkaloids | Processors, retailers and each product |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Health-Gen. §§ 21-2E-01 to 21-2E-04 | Yes | 21 | Factual basis, plus amounts | Yes, two limbs | 2% of alkaloid fraction | No |
| Oklahoma | 63 O.S. §§ 1-1432.1 to 1-1432.5 | Yes | 18 | Extensive, see above | Contamination limb | 1% of alkaloid fraction | No |
| Virginia | Va. Code § 59.1-200(77) | No | 21 | Ingredients, plus mandated warning | Yes | 1% of total alkaloids, or 1 mg per serving | No |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-795 to 36-795.03 | In the session law | 18 | Amounts of mitragynine and 7-OH | Yes, two limbs | 2% of alkaloid fraction | No |
| Texas | Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 445.001 to 445.007 | No | 18 | Use directions and serving size | Yes, two limbs | 2% of alkaloid fraction | No |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.998 | No | 18 | Ingredients and directions for use | Yes, one limb | None | No |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 44-1-105 | No | 21 | Manufacturer and ingredients | Controlled substances only | None | No |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 475.392 to 475.404 | Yes | 21 | None | Via registration rules | None | Processors |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws §§ 34-20B-1, 34-20B-115 | No | 21 | None | None | None | No |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 500.92 | Yes | 21 | None | None | None | No |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 152.027, subd. 7 | No | 21 | None | None | None | No |
West Virginia is a thirteenth. Its article is called the Select Plant-Based Derivatives Regulation Act: Kratom, and its opening section says its “permitting, labeling, and other control and administration provisions” reach businesses outside the state that sell remotely into it. We read that section and not the rest of the article, so it is not in the table.
Four things the table shows
The name predicts nothing. Of the five acts currently carrying it, Maryland’s and Oklahoma’s are among the most detailed in the country and Florida’s and Oregon’s are among the thinnest. Virginia’s, one of the strictest laws in the table, does not carry it. Utah’s did until May 2026.
Utah renamed its Act while tightening it. The chapter text effective 14 May 2019 is headed Kratom Consumer Protection Act. The text effective 6 May 2026, which supersedes it, is headed Kratom Regulation Act, and it is the version that added product registration, the retail tobacco licence condition, and an administrative fine of up to $5,000. A reader tracking this subject by statute name would have recorded Utah leaving the group in the same month it became the strictest member of it.
The 7-OH ceilings are five times apart, and none of them is the federal number. Utah’s 0.4 percent against Arizona’s, Maryland’s and Texas’s two percent is a fivefold spread on a similar measure. None is directly comparable to the 0.050 percent in the pending federal proposal, because the state ceilings are fractions of alkaloid content while the federal figure is a fraction of dry weight for botanical material and of total weight or volume for anything processed. The federal proposal also has an absolute limb of more than 1.00 milligram in the article, which is the one figure in it that resembles a state rule: Virginia’s one milligram per serving. We set the denominator problem out in our piece on the federal threshold.
Where the statute sits changes what enforcement looks like. Minnesota’s and South Dakota’s provisions are in the controlled substances chapter, and they are the two that reach the buyer rather than only the seller. South Dakota makes it unlawful for a person under 21 to purchase, receive, possess or consume a kratom product, and unlawful for anyone but a parent or guardian to buy one on their behalf. Virginia’s sits in the Virginia Consumer Protection Act’s list of prohibited practices. Arizona’s is in the public health title, and Arizona, Oklahoma, Maryland and Utah all give a buyer a civil action for damages. Oregon’s registration penalties run through the Department of Revenue, at up to $500 for a first offence and $1,000 afterwards, while its age offence is a Class C misdemeanor prosecuted in the ordinary way.
The Virginia warning, in full
Virginia is the only state we read that dictates the wording of a warning rather than its subject. A kratom product sold there must carry a label listing all ingredients and this disclosure:
WARNING: Kratom may cause dependence and opioid-like withdrawal. Do not use while pregnant. Use may impair judgment. Not for persons younger than 21 years of age.
The same subdivision also requires kratom products to be kept out of direct customer reach, behind a counter or in a locked case, and bars products that are combustible, intended for vaporisation or injection, marketed in a manner attractive to children, made with any “synthesized material, semi-synthetic alkaloid, or synthetic kratom-like compound”, or carrying residual solvent levels above the applicable limits. Colorado has a version of the storage rule. Oklahoma has a version of the solvent rule, pinned to the residual levels for pharmaceutical products in the FDA’s ICH Q3C guidance.
Maryland is the only state we read that regulates advertising. A retailer there may not advertise a therapeutic benefit of kratom at all, and may not market kratom products to minors, which the statute then defines through a list: no cartoon, no superhero, no video game reference, no trademark imitating one aimed at minors, no billboard within 500 feet of a school, and no image of a person who appears to be under 27.
What about testing
Three states reach it, and none of them by requiring a test before sale in the way a food regulator would.
Oregon’s registration rules must include “a requirement that a processor certify that all of the kratom products the processor will sell, distribute or expose for sale are third-party tested to satisfy industry standards for adulteration”. Utah’s department must make rules setting standards for a registered product, including standards for testing that it is safe for human consumption, and may seize and destroy an unregistered product offered for sale. Oklahoma may demand test results from a US-based independent laboratory confirming what the label claims, but only on request.
How this list was built, and what is missing
We used a survey by the Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association, a legal-analysis organisation working under a programme funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to know which states to look at. It is cited here for that and for nothing in the table. Every cell above comes from the section text.
The survey is 17 months old and it shows in two ways worth recording, because both are the kind of error a summary produces and a statute does not.
It groups Utah with the states setting a minimum age of 18. Utah’s chapter as it reads today sets 21. And it cites Texas at Health and Safety Code chapter 444, which is where the law was until the legislature redesignated the whole chapter as 445 with effect from 1 September 2025. Our first attempt to read Texas failed for that reason alone and produced nothing, which is exactly what looking up a repealed chapter number looks like from the outside.
Five states named in that survey are absent from the table because we have not read their statutes. Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee. In each case the state’s own portal returned a navigation shell rather than the section text, or the citation we had did not resolve to a section. That is a fact about our reach, not about their law, and the row is missing rather than guessed.
What this is not
This is a piece about a class of statute. It is not a legal status page. A state having a kratom consumer-protection law tells you that sales there are regulated in the ways its own text describes. It does not tell you the substance’s legal status in that state, and it says nothing about the states that control kratom’s alkaloids outright, which the same survey counts as six plus the District of Columbia. Our United States page covers federal law, and the individual state pages we publish cover state law.
Nor is any of it a statement about product quality. A potency ceiling is a rule addressed to sellers and enforced after the fact, usually by a penalty and sometimes by a private lawsuit. It is not a guarantee about what is in a package.