Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill

AB 1088: Public health: kratom.

Passed one chamber Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

AB 1088 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 20, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Public health: kratom. Primary sponsor: Jasmeet Bains (D). Most recent recorded action (June 17, 2026): In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics, under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health (department) and in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The act generally requires manufacturers, packers, and holders of processed foods to register with the department. A violation of the act is a crime.

This bill would add kratom products, as defined, to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. The bill would require a processor, as defined, to register with the department and to annually register each kratom product it manufactures, packages, distributes, or labels, which would include certification by a laboratory specifying that the product meets certain qualifications. The bill would establish labeling and packaging requirements for those products. The bill would prohibit the sale of kratom products to those under 21 years of age and would prohibit the sale or distribution of those products at a premise or on an internet website or application that permits a person under 21 years of age to enter and remain or to complete the purchase of any product. The bill would prohibit the sale or distribution of a kratom product that has a child-attractive flavor, as defined. The bill would authorize the department to deny, suspend, or revoke a registration for actions taken in violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require a purchaser of a kratom product to pay a tax on the purchase for use in this state of a kratom product from a retailer of 15% of the sales price from the sale of a kratom product. The bill would require a retailer to collect the tax from the purchaser at the time of the retail sale. The bill would require all revenues, interest, and penalties, less refunds, collected from the tax described above to be deposited into the Kratom Products Public Health and Safety Fund, a continuously appropriated fund created by the bill, and would require all amounts in the fund to be distributed to the University of California Kern County Medical Education Endowment Fund, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Primary Care Account, and the Specialty Care Account, among others. By creating a continuously appropriated fund and allocating additional moneys to continuously appropriated funds, the bill would make an appropriation.

The bill would provide for the administration and collection of this tax pursuant to procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. By expanding the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Jasmeet BainsPrimary sponsorDemocraticAssembly35

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
  2. Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and REV. & TAX.
  3. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
  4. Withdrawn from committee.
  5. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
  7. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
  8. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
  9. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 1876.)
  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  11. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).
  12. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1627.)

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page