A lot of operators are trying to make July 1 registry decisions right now without a clear written answer from DOR on one of the biggest questions in the market: what test methodology DOR will ultimately accept to prove a vape device “contains hemp” under Wis. Stat. § 94.55(1).
Here is the current state of play.
DOR’s public guidance says hemp vaping devices must be certified and listed by July 1, 2026 if they are going to be sold or offered for sale in Wisconsin after that date. DOR also says manufacturers must submit a certificate of analysis showing the device contains hemp and does not contain nicotine. The same FAQ says the $500 per device fee is nonrefundable and does not guarantee a device will be listed.
That means manufacturers are being asked to spend real money now, while a major interpretation issue still appears unresolved.
The unresolved issue is this:
Wisconsin’s hemp definition in § 94.55(1) uses the phrase “delta-9 THC concentration … as tested using post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods.” The open question is whether DOR will interpret that as requiring a total-THC / post-decarboxylation-equivalent calculation, or whether a delta-9-only cannabinoid result is enough for hemp device certification.
As of today, DOR’s public vape FAQ does not clearly answer that question. It says the device must contain hemp as defined in § 94.55(1), but it does not publicly state whether a total THC calculation is required on the lab report.
Why this matters:
There are already THCA-heavy products showing up in the market and on the registry conversation. One example COA circulating in the market shows Δ9-THC at 0.2481%, THCA at 81.2042%, and Total THC at 71.464%, with the lab expressly using the formula Total THC = THCA × 0.877 + Δ9-THC + Δ8-THC.
So businesses are rightfully asking: if products with chemistry like that are being approved or brought into stores now, can DOR later reverse course and tighten methodology after manufacturers have already paid filing fees and made inventory decisions?
Unfortunately, the answer is: yes, they may try.
DOR’s own FAQ says its interpretations may change based on new laws, rules, or court decisions, and that prior contrary guidance may be superseded. DOR also says the directory is updated nightly, that products can be removed, and that retailers/distributors/wholesalers have only 21 days after removal to get those devices out of inventory before seizure, forfeiture, and destruction risk kicks in. DOR further states that hemp devices not listed by July 1 cannot be sold in Wisconsin, and beginning September 1, 2026, a $1,000 per day per device forfeiture applies to manufacturers and retailers that sell or offer for sale unlisted hemp devices.
The fee risk is also very real. DOR explicitly says the $500/device certification fee is nonrefundable and does not guarantee listing. So if a manufacturer files now and DOR later changes or tightens its position, the manufacturer may still be out the filing fee even if the product is denied or later removed.
Bottom line:
The registry is open, but the methodology issue appears unresolved in public guidance. Businesses are being forced to decide whether to file under uncertainty, knowing the fee is nonrefundable and knowing DOR has left itself room to change interpretations.
Questions DOR should answer in writing immediately:
- Is a total THC calculation required on the lab report for a hemp vaping device to qualify for registry?
- If not, what post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods will DOR accept as sufficient proof that a device contains hemp under § 94.55(1)?
- If DOR intends to require a specific THC methodology, will that requirement be published in written guidance before July 1, 2026?
Until that is answered clearly, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are making expensive compliance and inventory decisions in a moving target environment.