A BILL to amend and reenact § 59.1-200 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Consumer Protection Act; prohibited practices; kratom products.
HB738 amends Virginia’s Consumer Protection Act, specifically the list of prohibited practices in § 59.1-200, to add a new consumer-protection violation for certain kratom-related sales and marketing practices. The bill would make it unlawful to sell kratom products to persons under 21, to sell kratom products without required ingredient and warning labels, or to sell kratom products containing synthesized material, semi-synthetic alkaloids, synthetic kratom-like compounds, excessive 7-hydroxymitragynine, dangerous adulterants, combustible or injectable forms, child-attractive packaging, or excessive residual solvents. It defines kratom as the leaf or extract of Mitragyna speciosa and sets specific product-safety and labeling standards.
The bill also updates the Consumer Protection Act by incorporating a broad set of existing state and federal violations into the list of unlawful practices, including various consumer, health, housing, and business-regulation statutes. In addition to the kratom provisions, the bill continues the pattern of using § 59.1-200 as a catchall enforcement mechanism for violations of related laws, meaning a violation of the newly added kratom rules would be treated as a consumer-protection violation under Virginia law.
If enacted, HB738 would expand the Virginia Consumer Protection Act by adding kratom product restrictions and labeling requirements as enforceable prohibited practices under § 59.1-200. This would give the Commonwealth and consumers a consumer-protection enforcement pathway against sellers who market kratom to minors, fail to provide warnings or ingredient disclosures, or sell adulterated or otherwise prohibited kratom products. It would also reinforce existing cross-references in the statute that treat violations of numerous other Virginia laws as consumer-protection violations, potentially increasing civil liability and enforcement exposure for suppliers covered by the Act.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no recorded debate to gauge detailed sentiment. The bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was presented as a consumer-safety and product-regulation measure, with a focus on restricting potentially harmful kratom products and improving disclosure to consumers. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials beyond the bill’s filing and committee referral.
The most likely point of contention is the new kratom regulation itself, especially the age restriction, product-composition limits, and labeling mandates, which could affect retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of kratom products. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s broad approach to consumer-protection enforcement, since § 59.1-200 already incorporates many separate statutory violations and HB738 would add another category of regulated products to that framework. Because no committee discussion is provided, no specific legislator, industry group, or stakeholder position can be identified from the record.