A coalition of hemp businesses filed a federal lawsuit Thursday targeting a Missouri law that would pull intoxicating hemp products from retail shelves statewide starting November 12. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District, the suit argues that House Bill 2641 - signed by Gov. Mike Kehoe earlier this year - contains definitions so internally inconsistent that businesses, law enforcement, and prosecutors cannot determine what is legal and what isn't. The stakes are immediate: thousands of SKUs currently sold in smoke shops, bars, and grocery stores could disappear from retail inventory in a matter of weeks.
The plaintiffs include MNG 2005, Inc. - parent company of 55 CBD Kratom retail locations nationwide - the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, and Wisconsin-based Lifted Liquids Inc. Their core legal argument is that HB2641 defines the same products as both "hemp" and "marijuana" in different provisions of the same law, creating criminal liability exposure for operators who cannot get a straight read on compliance. That kind of definitional conflict isn't unique to Missouri. Operators running point-of-sale for Illinois dispensaries and adjacent hemp retail across state lines have watched similar regulatory ambiguity force inventory write-offs and product pulls when state and federal definitions fail to align. When the legal line between a compliant hemp product and an unlicensed marijuana product shifts mid-sentence in a statute, compliance officers don't have a policy problem - they have a criminal exposure problem.
Craig Katz, government relations and compliance manager for MNG, put it plainly: lawmakers drafted language around a product category they don't fully understand. "A lot of this stuff is kind of in the weeds," Katz said. "It's very difficult to understand. And when people are trying to legislate it, if they don't understand it, you come up with something like HB2641, which doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense." That's not just a rhetorical jab - it maps to a genuine compliance problem that operators have faced repeatedly as state legislatures move faster than their technical drafting capacity allows.
What the Law Actually Does - and Why the Definitions Matter
HB2641 is broadly structured to mirror the federal hemp ban Congress approved last year. Under the law, intoxicating hemp products - including THC-infused seltzers currently on shelves in grocery chains and bars - would be prohibited from unlicensed retail starting November 12. If Congress reverses course on the federal ban, Missouri would only allow intoxicating hemp products to be sold through licensed marijuana dispensaries. If Congress delays the federal ban by a couple of years, Missouri would still prohibit all intoxicating hemp products except intoxicating beverages.
That tiered framework sounds tidy on paper. In practice, though, it creates a compliance calendar that shifts based on federal legislative outcomes no state business can predict. And the coalition's lawsuit identifies a separate, immediate problem: effective date provisions it calls "so convoluted that businesses cannot determine which products are covered or when." For any multi-location operator managing inventory across dozens of stores, that ambiguity isn't abstract - it's a purchasing freeze, a stalled wholesale menu, and a potential criminal charge if a buyer or manager guesses wrong.
The suit also raises a dormant commerce clause concern. While HB2641 purports to protect interstate hemp commerce, the coalition argues it simultaneously restricts who may transport hemp products through Missouri - a restriction that, if enforced, could create supply chain disruptions for businesses moving product across state lines through Missouri distribution corridors.
The Dispensary Monopoly Argument
Jay Patel, president of the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, framed the law in explicit market terms: "This isn't consumer protection. It's the elimination of an entire legal industry coupled with a government-mandated monopoly." That framing deserves some examination. If intoxicating hemp products can only be sold through licensed marijuana dispensaries after a federal reversal, the practical effect is that the consumer demand currently served by smoke shops, convenience retailers, and online hemp brands migrates entirely to the licensed dispensary channel - operators who have already invested in seed-to-sale tracking, compliant packaging, state-mandated lab testing, and excise tax compliance infrastructure.
From a dispensary economics standpoint, that's not necessarily a bad outcome for licensed operators. More SKU categories, broader consumer reach, and pricing power over products that previously competed with them outside regulated retail. But for the hemp businesses currently holding those shelves - brands that built distribution through unlicensed channels without the overhead of a cannabis license - it's an effective market exit.
What Operators Should Watch Before November 12
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Dave Hinman (R-O'Fallon), was direct about his read of the lawsuit's chances: he called it a "last ditch effort" and a "Hail Mary" - and predicted Missouri would mirror federal enforcement. That confidence may be warranted. HB2641 passed both chambers, was signed by the governor, and enforcement has been delegated to Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, whose office said it had not yet been served the lawsuit as of Thursday.
For hemp retailers, the calculus right now is uncomfortable. Courts can move slowly, and a preliminary injunction isn't guaranteed. Businesses sitting on intoxicating hemp inventory - particularly high-potency products, which the lawsuit notes have been sold at up to 1,000 mg of THC in some unlicensed Missouri smoke shops - need to understand that the November 12 date remains operative unless a court intervenes. Operating past that date without judicial relief, on the assumption that a lawsuit will prevail, is a compliance and criminal risk that no retail operator should accept lightly.
The coalition's concern that the law could also sweep non-intoxicating CBD products off shelves adds another layer of inventory risk - one that affects a much broader set of retailers than those selling high-potency THC beverages. If the definitional problems the lawsuit identifies are as severe as claimed, compliance officers at any hemp-adjacent retail chain in Missouri should be auditing their product catalog against the law's language now, not in October.
