A laboratory logo is not a guarantee.
A Certificate of Analysis (COA) is supposed to tell buyers what a laboratory found in a product sample. It can be genuine and useful. It can also be forged, altered, based on dishonest laboratory work, or attached to a different batch. The cases below are not hypothetical. They appear in state enforcement records, published investigations and independent testing.
The distinction matters: some cases document fraud; other cases document unreliable test results, inaccurate labels or still-contested allegations. Those are different findings, and this page marks them separately.
Not a prevalence estimate: these figures come from different investigations and samples. They do not establish that 85% of COAs are fraudulent, or that every kratom or cannabis seller acts dishonestly.
Six ways a COA can mislead you
Forged document
A seller invents results, copies a legitimate laboratory’s format, or edits a real report.
Dishonest laboratory
A real laboratory manipulates data or reports a test as passed when it was not.
Wrong batch
The certificate belongs to a different lot, strain, formulation or production date.
Selective sample
The seller submits a hand-picked sample that may not represent the merchandise actually sold.
Incomplete panel
A potency report is presented as a full safety clearance even though mold, metals or pesticides were not assessed.
Actual product differs
A legitimate report can still be unrepresentative if goods change after testing or other packages differ.
These are distinct failure mechanisms, not a claim that every mechanism was proven in every case. Oregon requires representative laboratory sampling in its regulated system; California specifies the testing areas that complete compliance testing must cover. [14] [15]
When the certificate—or the testing behind it—failed
These examples come from regulators or contemporary reporting of enforcement actions. A regulatory finding is identified as such; a filed allegation is not represented as a criminal conviction.
CBDDY / Gee Distributors — Colorado
The Colorado attorney general reported that CBDDY forged or altered COAs to make intoxicating cannabis products appear compliant with hemp rules. Samples purchased by investigators contained far higher THC concentrations than the company represented. In June 2025, the owner agreed to be permanently barred from operating cannabis-related businesses in Colorado. This case directly implicates the authenticity of the seller-supplied laboratory paperwork.
Praxis Laboratory — Washington
Washington’s Liquor and Cannabis Board found that Praxis falsified testing data to give more than 1,200 cannabis samples elevated THC potency results. Regulators stated the laboratory owner attempted to destroy evidence during the investigation. The state suspended its testing certification and announced its intention to seek permanent revocation.
Sequoia Analytical Labs — California
After an inspection, Sequoia said its lab director had secretly falsified pesticide results used to issue COAs while equipment problems prevented proper testing for 22 pesticides. The laboratory surrendered its state license. California officials subsequently ordered nearly 850 batches to be destroyed or retested, according to KQED.
California Cannabis Testing Labs — California
The California Department of Cannabis Control denied the laboratory’s annual license application after listing extensive violations. The state said the lab had reported the pesticide chlorfenapyr as “not detected” on a batch COA, but state testing of samples from the same batch detected 59.2 µg/g. Other alleged deficiencies concerned sampling and laboratory procedures. These are agency findings and allegations supporting licensing action; the mismatch alone does not establish who intended to deceive.
Keystone State Testing New York — New York
The New York Office of Cannabis Management reported 54 product lots with falsely reported Aspergillus results and one additional lot with an incorrectly reported cadmium result. Following inspections and a records audit, the state recalled affected products because the reported contamination results did not satisfy state safety standards. The agency characterized the lab results as unreliable; the release does not establish that every inaccurate result was deliberately falsified.
When reporters asked the laboratories themselves
These are investigative reports or regulatory allegations. They are useful evidence, but they should not be described as criminal convictions.
Uplift — hemp/THCA supplier
The Philadelphia Inquirer contacted six laboratories named on documents associated with Uplift products. According to the newspaper, one said Uplift had altered a genuine report to inflate reported THC potency; two others said Uplift had never been their client. These are laboratory statements reported by journalists, not court findings.
Flying Monkey — cannabinoid pre-rolls
ACS Laboratory told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Flying Monkey had digitally altered a COA to claim pre-rolls passed pathogen and heavy-metal tests when the laboratory said the product had failed. The paper’s independent analysis also found concerning contaminants.
OnPoint Laboratories — Arizona
Arizona regulators alleged that an OnPoint executive altered a COA during an inspection after several Aspergillus results had been misreported as negative. A company owner challenged responsibility for the alleged changes and called the incident sabotage. The reported accusation and the laboratory’s dispute are both part of the record.
Zaza Delivery — THCA flower certificates
The Dank Wire compared published THCA COAs and reported reused laboratory data, altered identifiers and digitally changed flower images across purportedly different products. This is an independent document investigation, not a state adjudication. It illustrates why comparing the complete analyte table and report identifiers may reveal inconsistencies that a glance at the THC headline misses.
The kratom-specific evidence is serious—but not the same as a proven forged COA
A review of publicly accessible enforcement and research sources did not identify a comparably well-substantiated kratom case in which regulators established that a named company forged a laboratory certificate. That is an important limit. What is documented is inaccurate product labeling, substantial alkaloid discrepancies, and enforcement allegations that marketing claims did not match independently tested products.
University of Florida: labels differed from laboratory findings in 85% of products examined
Researchers testing commercially sold kratom and kratom-derived products reported that 85% of the products they examined had chemical compositions inconsistent with product labeling. Some listed one alkaloid but contained several; others contained substances not disclosed on the label. This finding demonstrates a labeling-integrity problem in the products studied. It does not establish that 85% of COAs are forged, or that the sampled products represent the entire market.
Texas: product testing challenged seller representations about 7-OH
The Texas attorney general sued Pure Leaf Kratom and Outcast Distribution, alleging that products sold or shipped to Texas had 7-OH comprising 86–96% of total alkaloids, contrary to the businesses’ statements about products shipped to the state. The announcement describes alleged violations of Texas law; it does not allege that a named laboratory COA was forged.
Researchers detected unexpectedly concentrated 7-OH in commercial kratom products
A published analytical study found several packaged kratom products with 7-hydroxymitragynine concentrations significantly above levels described for raw leaf and concluded that the results strongly suggested adulteration. The finding predates the present 7-OH market. It establishes that undisclosed product modification was a concern well before current controversies.
California: labels and product claims are not verified safety assurances
California’s Department of Public Health warned that kratom and 7-OH products sold for consumption have not been approved by the FDA for those uses and have not been evaluated for consistent composition, accurate labels, safety and effectiveness. This is a public-health warning; it does not establish that every individual product is mislabeled.
Even without forgery, independent testing is often at odds with the label
Oregon hemp edibles linked to verifiable potency results
In a 2025 state investigation, only 10% of sampled hemp edibles carried clear potency labeling traceable to test results. This speaks to verification and labeling—not proof of forged COAs. OLCC official findings ↗
Oregon third-party potency results exceeded state reference results on average
Oregon’s technical report found commercial testing results averaged 13% higher on a relative basis than the state's reference-laboratory results for marijuana samples in its analysis. The variability was substantial; a mean discrepancy is not proof that each laboratory intentionally inflated potency. OLCC technical report ↗
Accreditation does not certify an individual result
NIST explains that laboratory accreditation assesses a laboratory's competence and capabilities, not the correctness of every individual measurement. Checking whether a lab is accredited is worthwhile; treating accreditation as an absolute guarantee is not. NIST explanation ↗
What a credible COA must survive
There is no reliable way to authenticate a report simply by inspecting its graphic design. The strongest checks involve the original laboratory, the exact batch, the sampling method and the complete result set.
- Confirm issuance directly with the laboratory. Use independently obtained contact details. Ask whether the certificate number, product identifier, dates, analytes and final values match the laboratory’s original records.
- Match the specific batch. Compare the lot number on the package with the report; look for evidence that the tested sample came from the same finished formulation. A report for bulk leaf does not automatically establish the contents of finished tablets or shots.
- Check accreditation and its scope. Confirm that the relevant analytes and methods are within the lab’s accredited or otherwise validated capabilities. ISO/IEC 17025 alone does not validate a particular result.
- Check sampling and chain of custody. Who selected the sample, who delivered it, and was selection independent? A retailer-chosen sample may not represent every unit in stock.
- Read the whole report, not just “PASS.” Check whether potency, contaminants, heavy metals, microbes, pesticide residues, and solvents (where relevant) were actually measured; note detection limits and methods.
- Check revisions and recalls. Ask whether the report was amended, the batch was recalled or the testing laboratory has faced enforcement action. Record the date on which you checked.
When a company says “lab tested,” what should a regulator ask?
Was the certificate actually issued?
Will the laboratory confirm its original version independently of the seller?
Was that finished batch tested?
Can the lot number, product photo and chain of custody establish a real match?
Was the test complete?
Are relevant alkaloids and contamination panels included, with detection limits and methods?
Is independent retesting possible?
Does the regulator retain samples, request raw data and investigate unexplained discrepancies?
A COA should begin a verification process—not end one. Otherwise a single document can become the entire consumer-protection system, even when the document itself is the very thing that needs examining.
What this investigation does not claim
It does not claim that all COAs are fake, all laboratories are dishonest, or every sample discrepancy proves intentional fraud. It does not treat marijuana, hemp and kratom as chemically or legally equivalent. Different state rules and different laboratory methods apply.
We also did not count the BelCosta Labs allegations as established fraud: although California authorities suspended the laboratory in 2025, reporting in August 2026 described an administrative law judge's finding that regulators had not substantiated major fraud and public-harm claims. That later development materially changes how the early allegations should be characterized. Read the follow-up reporting ↗
Source standard: government determinations, laboratory admissions, peer-reviewed research, newspaper investigations and unresolved allegations are labeled separately. A laboratory's own confirmed report is stronger evidence of issuance than a PDF hosted only on a manufacturer's website.
Original documents and further reading
The sources below allow readers to test the claims themselves. Primary agency records are identified; press investigations and research are separately labeled.
- Colorado Attorney General (2024 and 2025): Complaint announcement and settlement announcement.
- Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (2020): Praxis testing fraud and certification suspension.
- Sacramento Bee and KQED (2018): Sequoia laboratory admission; recall and retesting.
- California Department of Cannabis Control (2024): California Cannabis Testing Labs denial letter (PDF) and enforcement action index.
- New York Office of Cannabis Management (2026): Keystone State Testing New York recall (PDF).
- The Philadelphia Inquirer (2025): Investigation into hemp products, labs and altered certificates.
- Cannabis Business Times (2023): OnPoint inspection allegations and company response.
- The Dank Wire (2024): Allegedly altered THCA flower reports and document comparisons.
- University of Florida (2026): Research announcement.
- Gour A et al., Drug Testing and Analysis (2026): “Mislabeling and Status of Semisynthetic Kratom-Derived Products in the US Market”.
- Texas Attorney General (2026): Kratom 7-OH lawsuit announcement.
- Published kratom study (2016): “Suspected Adulteration of Commercial Kratom Products with 7-Hydroxymitragynine”.
- California Department of Public Health (2026): Kratom and 7-OH retailer/public warning.
- Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (2025): Hemp market investigation findings and technical report (PDF).
- California Department of Cannabis Control: Required cannabis testing and COA reporting. NIST: Limits of laboratory accreditation.
- Utah Department of Agriculture and Food: Kratom testing and batch-specific COA requirements.
- Virginia Cannabis Control Authority: Hemp COA and batch-matching requirements.
- MJBizDaily (August 2026): BelCosta administrative judge findings—important later correction.
Published October 26, 2026. This page is an evidence review, not a legal finding against any company. Sources are attributed; readers should consult original orders and the latest case docket before relying on disputed allegations.