Looks to me that Kahre — though he acknowledges a potential "either/or" situation — has decidedly come down on only one side. And it is definitely not on the side of abiogenesis as an explanation of the emergence of life.
Please read his statement — carefully — again.
Also please note: We are speaking of Kahre's LAW, not Kahre's "hypothesis," or Kahre's "theory." Science is very careful about attributing the status of a "law." It goes without saying (perhaps) that a LAW is a stronger thing than a hypothesis or a theory.
The paper I quoted is not by Kahre, it's by a Hungarian scientist with the charming name of Attile Grandpierre. It refers to his (and Ashby's) law several times in describing the information paradox, but he is proposing a way out of the paradox--without resorting to an external agent.
Also, he does not dismiss abiogenesis but it looking for an explanation beyond that. He writes
Within the present state of biology, it seems that there are only two ways out of the informational paradox of biology. The established way is that of the abiogenesis. They realised a foundational work concerning the details of the chemical evolutionary process. The chemoton theory has the ambitious aim to follow chemical evolution until life’s development.I am not finding any results for "chemoton theory disproved," so I guess it's still a line of research.
Finally, a law isn't really stronger than a theory. A law is merely an observation--"when we do this, that happens." It's a law because it happens every time we test it. A theory is a proposed explanation for why it happens. To use your terminology once again, that makes it higher quality than a law. (Also, of course, laws are only laws until an observation conflicts. Usually that just means their domain has to be restricted. For example, Newton's laws were laws until relativity--and they still are, so long as you leave out certain extreme states of matter. Similarly, Kahre's law may have to be restricted to nonbiological systems, if Grandpierre's theory stands up.)