Kratom, derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree native to Southeast Asia, is a controversial herbal substance known for its stimulant and opioid-like effects. In California, where wellness trends often flourish, kratom is widely available in vape shops, gas stations, and online, marketed for pain relief, mood enhancement, or opioid withdrawal aid.
However, its legal status remains a patchwork of state permissiveness and local restrictions, with no comprehensive regulations in place as of 2025. Recent legislative efforts, such as Assembly Bill 2365, aimed to regulate the unregulated market but failed to pass, leaving California’s kratom landscape complex.
This article explores California’s kratom laws in 2025, including the state’s legal framework, local bans, failed regulatory attempts, public health concerns, and future prospects, providing clarity for consumers, retailers, and advocates.
Is Kratom Legal in California in 2025?
As of June 15, 2025, kratom is legal in California at the state level for purchase, possession, and use by adults, with no statewide age restrictions or labeling requirements. Unlike states like Alabama or Wisconsin, where kratom is banned, California’s laissez-faire approach reflects its emphasis on consumer choice for herbal supplements. However, local jurisdictions have imposed their own rules, creating a fragmented legal landscape.
Cities like San Diego, Oceanside, and Newport Beach have banned kratom outright, classifying it alongside synthetic drugs like bath salts since 2016. San Diego County declared kratom a “public nuisance” in 2020 but stopped short of a countywide ban, allowing sales in cities like Chula Vista and Escondido. These local ordinances highlight the absence of uniform state oversight, leaving consumers and retailers to navigate varying rules.
The lack of state regulation stems from California’s historical reluctance to restrict herbal substances without federal guidance. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not approve kratom as a drug, dietary supplement, or food additive, deeming it an “unsafe food additive” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act § 402(a)(2)(C)(i)).
Despite FDA warnings about risks like liver toxicity and addiction, kratom remains unregulated federally, pushing states like California to address it independently. In 2016, U.S. Marshals seized kratom products in Grover Beach for misbranding, not for kratom’s inherent legality, underscoring enforcement focused on marketing violations rather than bans.
Current Legislative Effort: California Assembly Bill 1088 (AB 1088) – 2025
Assembly Bill 1088, authored by Assemblymember Bains and heard by the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials on April 29, 2025, proposes critical regulations on kratom and its psychoactive derivative, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). The bill seeks to integrate kratom-related products under the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman law), establishing new consumer protection standards focused on public health, youth safety, and product accountability.
Key Provisions of AB 1088
- Product Definitions:
AB 1088 provides precise definitions to eliminate ambiguity around kratom regulation:
- Kratom Product: Any form of kratom leaf, kratom extract, or combination thereof.
- 7-OH Product: Any product containing 7-hydroxymitragynine.
- Total Kratom Alkaloids: The combined content of mitragynine, speciociliatine, speciogynine, paynantheine, and 7-OH.
- Packaging Standards:
The bill mandates child-resistant packaging for kratom and 7-OH products. Accepted standards include:
- Packaging compliant with the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, or
- Heavy-duty, heat-sealed plastic of at least 4 mils thickness without easy-open features.
- Sales Restrictions:
- Prohibits the sale or distribution of kratom and 7-OH products to individuals under 21 years old.
- Requires online retailers to implement effective age-verification mechanisms.
- Marketing Limitations:
- Explicitly bans packaging, labeling, or marketing that is attractive to children, including but not limited to:
- Use of cartoons, fictional characters, or imagery associated with toys or candy.
- Packaging mimicking popular snack foods, cereals, or sweets.
- Use of terms like “candy” or their variations.
- Empowers the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to determine additional criteria that render packaging appealing to minors.
- Explicitly bans packaging, labeling, or marketing that is attractive to children, including but not limited to:
- Potency Cap on 7-OH:
- Prohibits products containing more than 2% 7-hydroxymitragynine relative to the total kratom alkaloid content, aligning with standards in other regulated states.
AB 1088 represents a significant step toward establishing a structured, statewide regulatory framework for kratom in California. Rather than banning kratom outright, the bill introduces sensible regulations designed to safeguard consumers, particularly minors, while addressing the public health risks associated with unregulated kratom and 7-OH products.
As of June 30, 2025, California Assembly Bill 1088 (AB 1088) has not yet been enacted into law. The bill is currently progressing through the legislative process.
Current Status of AB 1088
- Introduced: February 20, 2025, by Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains.
- Committee Hearings:
- April 22, 2025: Heard by the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials.
- April 29, 2025: Reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Health.
- May 21, 2025: Considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- Latest Action: As of June 11, 2025, AB 1088 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Health for further consideration.
If California Assembly Bill 1088 passes, kratom and products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) will remain legal but face strict regulations statewide. The bill would prohibit sales to anyone under 21, require child-resistant packaging, and ban marketing that appeals to children, such as cartoon images or candy-like branding. It also sets a potency limit, restricting 7-OH to no more than 2% of total kratom alkaloids in any product. Violations would result in fines under the state’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. This legislation aims to improve consumer safety while preventing youth access and curbing the sale of dangerously potent kratom products.
Failed Regulatory Efforts: Assembly Bill 2365
In 2024, Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 2365 (AB 2365), dubbed the Kratom Safety Act, to regulate California’s kratom market. The bill, which stalled in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file on August 15, 2024, aimed to address the “total free-for-all” described by Haney, where kratom is sold without labeling, dosage guidance, or age limits. Key provisions of AB 2365 included:
- Registration with the State: Kratom processors would register with the California Department of Public Health, paying an annual fee based on sales volume to fund oversight.
- Labeling Requirements: Products would list mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine concentrations, include FDA warnings about unapproved status, and provide safe-use instructions.
- Age Restriction: Sales to individuals under 21 would be prohibited, aligning with tobacco and alcohol laws.
- Product Safety Standards: Bans on synthetic alkaloids, limits on alkaloid potency, and prohibitions on child-attractive or inhalable kratom products.
- Enforcement: Violations would trigger fines, registration revocation, or misdemeanor charges, with a grace period for compliant processors until April 1, 2025.
AB 2365 was supported by the Global Kratom Coalition and law enforcement groups, who argued it would ensure product consistency and protect consumers from adulterated kratom containing contaminants like heavy metals or salmonella. However, opposition from the American Kratom Association (AKA) and Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust cited high compliance costs that could burden small vendors and limit access for users relying on kratom for opioid withdrawal. The bill’s shelving, attributed to its estimated regulatory costs, reflects California’s struggle to balance safety with industry viability. Haney has vowed to pursue future regulations, possibly through the Department of Public Health or federal advocacy.
Local Bans and Their Impact
Local bans in California cities like San Diego (since 2016), Oceanside, and Newport Beach (since May 2024) prohibit kratom sales and possession, driven by concerns over its opioid-like effects and lack of regulation. San Diego’s ordinance, for instance, equates kratom with synthetic drugs, a classification criticized by advocates like the AKA for misrepresenting kratom’s natural origin.
These bans push consumers to neighboring cities or online vendors, where unregulated products pose risks of inconsistent potency or contamination. A 2023 Tampa Bay Times investigation found 580 kratom-related overdose deaths in Florida since 2013, highlighting the dangers of unregulated markets, a concern echoed in California lawsuits against companies like Botanic Tonics for inadequate warnings.
Public Health Concerns and Advocacy
Kratom’s dual nature, praised for pain relief and opioid withdrawal aid, yet linked to addiction and overdoses, fuels debate in California. The FDA reports adverse effects like seizures, liver toxicity, and substance use disorder, with the CDC noting 91 kratom-related deaths nationwide from 2016 to 2017, though most involved other substances. A 2023 Congressional Research Service report flagged contaminants like Salmonella in U.S. kratom products, a risk amplified by California’s unregulated market. In 2022, California poison control centers received 1,278 kratom-related calls, up from 372 in 2017, indicating rising use and risks.
Advocates, including users like Travis Thompson, who credited kratom with ending his alcoholism, argue for regulation over bans to ensure safe access. The AKA’s Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), adopted in states like Georgia and Arizona, serves as a model for California, promoting age limits and labeling without prohibiting sales. Conversely, critics like Beth Quinn, whose son died from a kratom overdose, and opinion pieces in the Sacramento Bee advocate for a Schedule I classification, citing 4.9 million U.S. users in 2022 and 1,278 poison control calls as evidence of a public health crisis.
A June 2025 X post by @HART7OH warned that new legislation like AB 1088 could create a “cannabis vs. hemp-style mess” for kratom, reflecting ongoing advocacy against overly restrictive measures. However, without verifiable details on AB 1088, this claim remains speculative, underscoring the need for critical scrutiny of social media sentiments.
Legal Considerations for Consumers and Retailers
For California consumers in 2025, kratom is accessible outside banned cities, but caution is advised:
- Verify Vendor Compliance: Purchase from retailers with transparent sourcing and third-party testing to avoid contaminated products.
- Check Local Laws: Avoid possession in San Diego, Oceanside, or Newport Beach to evade fines or confiscation.
- Monitor Health Risks: Consult healthcare providers, given FDA warnings about addiction and overdose risks, especially with high-potency extracts.
Retailers face fewer state-level obligations but must:
- Adhere to Local Bans: Cease sales in restricted cities to avoid legal action.
- Prepare for Future Regulations: Anticipate potential labeling or age rules, as Haney’s ongoing efforts suggest renewed legislative action in 2026.
- Ensure Product Safety: Voluntarily adopt KCPA-like standards to mitigate liability, as seen in lawsuits against MIT45 Inc. in San Diego for misleading marketing.
Future Outlook and Legislative Prospects
California’s kratom laws may evolve in 2026, driven by public health concerns and advocacy. Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2024 executive order banning intoxicating hemp products with THC sets a precedent for regulating psychoactive substances, potentially influencing kratom policy.
A Capitol Weekly opinion piece suggests future legislation could define leaf kratom, mandate labeling, impose age restrictions, and require processor testing, mirroring AB 2365’s goals. Federal efforts, like the Federal Kratom Consumer Protection Act (H.R.5905, S.3039), introduced in 2023, propose FDA hearings and research task forces, which could prompt California to align with national standards.
Debates persist between banning kratom, as urged by critics citing overdose deaths, and regulating it, as supported by users reporting opioid recovery benefits. Dr. Oliver Grundmann’s research at the University of Florida suggests controlled access could mitigate risks while preserving therapeutic potential, a view shared by the Global Kratom Coalition. California’s failure to pass AB 2365 leaves it lagging behind states like Georgia, where House Bill 181 enforces strict safety rules. Until new laws emerge, California’s kratom market remains a regulatory gray zone, demanding vigilance from all stakeholders.
Conclusion
In 2025, kratom is legal in California at the state level but banned in cities like San Diego, Oceanside, and Newport Beach, with no statewide regulations governing sales or use. The shelving of AB 2365 in 2024 highlights the challenges of regulating a substance with both reported benefits and documented risks, from addiction to rare overdose deaths. Consumers must navigate local bans and unregulated products, while retailers face potential liability without clear guidelines.
As public health concerns mount and advocacy groups like the AKA push for KCPA adoption, California lawmakers are likely to revisit kratom regulation in 2026, potentially inspired by federal or neighboring state models. For now, understanding local laws and prioritizing safety is essential for anyone engaging with kratom in the Golden State.
If you’ve lost a loved one to a kratom-related tragedy in Edinburg, Texas, don’t wait to seek justice; time is critical with Texas’s two-year statute of limitations. Fill out our secure, no-obligation contact form today to connect with our experienced kratom wrongful death lawyers.