Though Kratom is Legal in Missouri, AG is Using Lawsuits to Shut Down Sales

On August 6, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway put out a press release announcing that another kratom company had “agreed” to no longer sell kratom.

The Green Dragon, LLC and owners David Jadwin and Matthew Jadwin (together, “Dragon”), have agreed not to own, operate, or have a financial interest in any business entity in the State of Missouri that markets, advertises, or sells, directly or indirectly, 7-OH or any other kratom product to Missouri consumers and distributors.

In what the AG’s office calls a “series of agreements”, several companies stopped selling kratom that remains legal and unregulated in Missouri. On November 20, 2025, Hanaway announced a statewide investigation targeting kratom manufacturers and distributors, which was later expanded to target retailers, describing the products as opioid-like drugs. In March, Hanaway sued American Shaman, one of the largest manufacturers of 7-OH in the world. An April press release revealed that 22 kratom and 7-OH companies “across the supply chain” were being investigated.In May, Hanaway sued another vendor, EDP Kratom. Both companies agreed in June to stop selling all kratom and 7-OH products.

Hanaway’s office is relying on several existing Missouri statutes since there is no Missouri law specifically banning kratom. First, the Attorney General is invoking the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, which gives the AG authority to investigate and sue businesses for allegedly deceptive or unfair practices including allegedly failing to disclose active ingredients, downplaying addiction and withdrawal risks, making misleading safety claims, and distributing products without adequate warnings. The office’s Civil Investigative Demands have sought information about manufacturing, labeling, marketing, ingredients, testing, adverse events, supply sources, and alkaloid concentrations from companies throughout the supply chain.

Second, Hanaway is relying on Missouri’s drug and food statutes, particularly Chapter 196. Her position is that kratom products containing substances such as mitragynine and 7-OH can constitute unapproved “new drugs” or, alternatively, adulterated food products. In the American Shaman petition, the AG alleges that selling kratom products without the required regulatory approvals violates §§ 196.015 and 196.105.1. Critically, paragraph 104 says this theory applies regardless of whether the court ultimately determines that the products are new drugs, adulterated food products, or both.

Third, in the American Shaman case, Hanaway went further by arguing that mitragynine and 7-OH fall within Missouri’s controlled-substance analogue/homologue provisions. This is perhaps the most far-fetched allegation in the lawsuit. The AG’s theory would have to be something like: mitragynine or 7-OH has a chemical structure substantially similar to a particular Schedule I or II substance, and its pharmacological effects are substantially similar to that substance. If those elements were established, Missouri’s analogue statute could potentially treat the molecule as a Schedule I or II controlled substance even though the Missouri legislature never specifically named mitragynine or 7-OH in the schedules.

However, the Missouri statute itself creates some potentially significant legal questions. The analogue definition says “substantially similar” chemical structure, but it doesn’t simply say that any substance with opioid activity is an analogue. The AG therefore needs a defensible comparison between the molecular structure and pharmacological effects of mitragynine/7-OH and a specific Schedule I or II substance.

This is the latest tactic in a series of actions by states waving a legal wand to outlaw anything they deem evil. Whether it’s temporary emergency scheduling as in North Dakota, or weaving a legal narrative justifying the removal of kratom from shelves as in California, or pressuring companies to stop selling kratom with lawsuits as in Missouri, drug warriors are determined to wield executive power and skirt the democratic process to criminalize sellers and/or consumers of substances they don’t personally like.