Kratom Company Sues Utah Over SB 45, Calling Kava-Kratom Product Ban Unconstitutional

Why it matters

The legal challenge could set a major precedent for how states can differentially regulate kratom products—particularly whether banning specific formulations like kava-kratom combinations while permitting pure leaf products is constitutionally valid.

The big picture

Utah's SB 45 is among the most detailed state-level kratom regulatory frameworks yet enacted, distinguishing between pure leaf products (permitted in smoke shops only) and processed or combination products (banned). The lawsuit challenges whether states can single out specific kratom formulations for prohibition—a question with national implications as dozens of states debate their own kratom legislation.

Key findings

• Botanic Tonics LLC filed suit in U.S. District Court against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and state agricultural officials on March 31, 2026.
• Utah SB 45, signed by Gov. Cox on March 26, restricts kratom sales to smoke shops and bans 'feel free' (a kratom-kava combination tonic) in 321 retail locations.
• Botanic Tonics estimates over $10 million in projected losses from the product ban.
• The company cites 14 clinical trials—including one FDA-sponsored study—supporting the safety of kratom leaf products.
• The lawsuit asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue a preliminary injunction blocking its May 6, 2026 effective date.

What they say

Sen. Mike McKell, the bill's sponsor, said: "These new safeguards protect our kids and bring accountability to an industry that has operated without oversight for too long."

Bottom line

The Utah lawsuit will test whether states can legally target specific kratom product formulations rather than kratom broadly—a ruling could reshape the national regulatory landscape.