Alcohol Justice monitors state and federal legislative activity (including budget proposals) in 5 alcohol policy areas: Taxes, Alcopops/Dangerous Products, Advertising, Deregulation, and .05 BAC.
When a majority of state legislatures are in session, we conduct updates every 1-2 weeks; at other times, we update the information every 2-3 weeks. Each page includes current bills.
Please consult your own state legislature’s website for the most current and accurate information.
Click here to select your own state for the most current and accurate information through our interactive state-by-state map.
Last update: August 26, 2026
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
Alcohol-related legislative activity in California, including bills and budget proposals.
2026 Legislative Session
Click the link below to submit a letter to the California state legislature
For copies of Alcohol Justice or CAPA position letters, please email our legislative staff.
2026 Assembly Bills
AB 744
Alcoholic beverage control: tied-house restrictions: exceptions: off-sale retail services.
Rodriguez (D-Chino)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: Expands the size of single-serving cans of wine and distilled spirits that would be eligible for stocking by wholesalers at point of delivery.
Analysis: One of the more casual exemptions to tied-house law allows wholesalers to arrange stockrooms and shelves on behalf of retailers when delivering orders. This privilege applies only to single-serve packaging, which includes most beer and some wine and distilled spirit-based products. AB 744 expands the eligible container sizes for wine and spirit-based products from 355 ml (12 oz.) to 500 ml (16.9 oz.). That in itself does not lend to greater harm, but wine and spirits-based ready-to-drink formulations tend to run substantially higher in ABV than beers do. Regardless of what services wholesalers are allowed to perform, the casual acceptance of larger “single servings” for RTDs augurs a growing threat to public health.
Position: NO POSITION
AB 1546
Vehicles: driving under the influence.
Schultz (D-Burbank)
Status: Senate Appropriations
Summary: Increases the penalties for repeat DUI—including increasing the sentence to a felony in some instances—and mandates the installation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) for repeat offenders.
Analysis: One of the few bills from the raft of legislation introduced earlier in the year, all which increase DUI penalties, to make it to the final appropriations committee. But questions remain whether it can move from there. As with many of the carceral bills, AB 1546 impacts drivers after they have repeatedly engaged in dangerous driving. As such, it is not primarily a prevention bill. That said, the IID element in particular echoes the growing call to increase use of those devices, a call that AJ supports. But the criminal justice system’s shortcomings in dealing with DUI do not stem primarily from inherently lenient penalties.
Position: WATCH
AB 1585
Wine labeling: “American” or “United States” appellation.
Connolly (D-San Rafael), Ransom (D-Stockton)
Status: Pulled by author
Summary: Requires wine which is labeled as “American” or “United States” to be made entirely from grapes grown in the United States.
Analysis: This is a bit of alcohol trade protectionism that might actually increase alcohol prices. Sadly, that is not sufficiently evidence-based prevention.
Position: WATCH
AB 1605
Driving under the influence: alcohol sales
Ransom (D-Stockton)
Status: Held in committee
Summary: Would allow courts to place a flag on the state IDs (drivers licenses and/or ID cards) of an individual convicted of multiple DUIs that would make alcohol purchasing illegal, and require that all retailers check all IDs and refuse sale to those which are flagged.
Analysis: Two separate bills this year broached the possibility of restricting access to alcohol for people with a demonstrated history of endangering others after drinking. Like AB 1867, this bill would require the DMV to issue ID cards that prohibited the bearer from purchasing alcohol. Judges would have the option of assigning this bill after 3 offenses in 10 years. It also imposed a new obligation upon retailers to check IDs before completing a sale, which in itself would strengthen protections against illegal sales—in California, although a retailer can be punished for completing an illegal sale, they are under no objection to proactively ensure the sale is legal. Concerns remained around the likelihood that the flagged licenses would create unintended stigma in other areas. However, the need for innovative approaches to deterrence that do not rely on imprisonment, combined with the potential to make the sales environment safer whether or not the ID was flagged, provided sufficient incentive to support.
Position: SUPPORT
AB 1686
Vehicles: driving under the influence: felonies.
Lackey (R-Palmdale)
Status: Held in committee
Summary: Would increase punishments for people who are repeatedly convicted for driving dangerously while under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
Analysis: An influential CalMatters article identified a number of deeply concerning failures within the California justice system, centered around repeat DUI offenders eventually causing horrific crashes or pedestrian fatalities. This triggered a raft of legislative proposals, many of which focused on increasing the penalties for DUI, and particularly repeat DUI. We agree that something needs to be done, but the failures in the criminal justice system go deeper than simply not locking people up for longer. This, combined with the risk that structural biases will not apply these penalties even-handedly—a complication that would actually encourage dangerous driving among individuals who believe they are not subject to those biases—leads us to take a WATCH position.
Position: WATCH
AB 1687
Driver’s licenses: revocation.
Lackey (R-Palmdale)
Status: Assembly Floor (concurrence)
Summary: Mandates license suspension for people who are convicted for DUI five times in 10 years.
Analysis: License revocation is brutal, particularly in a car-centric culture like the United States, but it is less devastating than prison time, and certainly less devastating than being the victim in a motor vehicle crash.
Position: WATCH
AB 1724
Court operations.
Ellis (R-Bakersfield)
Status: Held in committee (Assembly Appropriations)
Summary: Would require regular reporting allowing the legislature to audit state courts’ compliance with reporting vehicular violations to the DMV.
Analysis: This bill attempts to address at least one source of inefficiency and delayed punishment for dangerous driving by creating a new oversight mechanism to ensure the DMV acts on court orders. It failed to pass from its house of origin.
Position: NO POSITION
AB 1748
License suspension and revocation.
Sachez (R-Rancho Santa Margarita)
Status: Held in committee
Summary: Would require the DMV to automatically suspend the license of drivers convicted of DUI, and impose rapidly lengthening suspensions upon repeat offenses—culminating in a permanent revocation of the licenses of those who receive 4 or more convictions within 10 years.
Analysis: Like many bills on this year’s legislative slate, AB 1748 seeks to reduce the incidence of dangerous driving by escalating the penalties for DUI. This makes intuitive sense, as legally operating a motor vehicle is a privilege that should inherently revolve around respect for the safety of those around you. However, license suspensions are an incomplete deterrent, in large part because someone who would repeatedly drive illegally intoxicated seems unlikely to suddenly stop simply because their license was revoked. As most all of the bills that lean into carceral consequences, punishment is a consequence of a failure of prevention, and to be truly effective, must be supported by upstream measures.
Position: SUPPORT
AB 1814
Peace officer training: driving under the influence.
Alanis (R-Modesto)
Status: Held in committee (Assm. Appropriations)
Summary: Requires officers engaged in traffic enforcement to undergo training in how to conduct a field sobriety test.
Analysis: There is no question that CA police officers need training around DUI enforcement. AB 1814, by mandating a NHTSA-approved sobriety stop curriculum, takes a big step into offering that training, yet more steps are needed to ensure robust and equitable enforcement. Aside from orienting officers in avoiding bias and avoiding the temptation to engage in pretextual DUI stops (that is, asserting a suspected DUI simply as a reason to pull someone over), training should be able to address decision-making process for setting up traps and checkpoints. At the moment, those rationale remain opaque at best, arbitrary at worst. That said, training is also functionally a contract to pay attention to and uphold critical enforcement around dangerous driving, and amending an existing training mechanism is easier than initiating one.
Position: SUPPORT
AB 1830
Ignition interlock devices
Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), Calderon (D-City of Industry), Lackey (R-Palmdale), Ransom (D-Stockton)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: Strengthens penalties for DUI, primarily by requiring the installation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs), essentially breathalyzers that must detect a 0% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) before the car can start.
Analysis: IIDs are a standard post-conviction deterrent for DUI, and many states make their installation a requirement of having license suspensions lifted. This bill would add California to their number, and provide financial support for low-income individuals required to install the devices. IIDs are both highly effective and highly limited. They are remarkably effective in preventing recidivism while they are installed, but long-term behavior change requires other supports. Still, with the resource-limited California courts, any option that prevents jail time and the cascade of consequences that can follow from that should be encouraged. It is also worth noting that this bill requires IIDs for people convicted of driving while under the influence of drugs and having a BAC over 0.04 (half the legal limit for alcohol alone). Co-consumption of is an underrecognized risk factor for dangerous driving.
Position: SUPPORT
AB 1867
Driving under the influence: alcoholic beverages.
Tangipa (R-Fresno)
Status: Withdrawn by author
Summary: Would impose a lifetime ban on purchasing alcoholic beverages on individuals receiving 3 DUIs within a 10-year period. The ban would be enforced through an alteration to the driver’s license or state ID card.
Analysis: Two separate bills this year broached the possibility of restricting access to alcohol for people with a demonstrated history of endangering others after drinking. Utah has already passed such a law, which allows judges to flag an ID as “interdicted” and therefore invalid for alcohol purchases. The impact is unclear; increasing the friction for engaging in repeated dangerous behaviors shows theoretical promise as a prevention strategy, but there is effectively no data at all on whether it would work. Opponents have raised a contrasting civil rights issue, namely that the narrow injunction against buying alcohol might be interpreted as a general indication of “low character” in any other transaction that requires a legal ID. This bill was consolidated into Assm. Ransom’s AB 1605 before AJ finalized positions.
Position: WATCH
AB 1915
Accelerated restaurant equipment permitting approval: retail food safety.
Gabriel (D-Encino), Wicks (D-Oakland)
Status: Held in committee (Senate Appropriations)
Summary: Streamlines a number of permitting requirements for restaurants and bars. Of specific interest, eliminates requirements for food-safe surfaces anywhere alcohol is sold or dispensed, whether or not an employee is present.
Analysis: Though this bill has little consequences for alcohol harm, just intestinal risk, it is a quiet warning sign for legislation to come. The change that it makes to the CA code concerns alcohol sales sans employee, meaning serve-yourself taps, automatic dispensers, and the like. No longer requiring consumer-facing dispensers to adhere to food safety standards strongly suggests we will see other standards those licensees will be exempt from. Perhaps RBS, perhaps illegal sale accountability, perhaps overservice liability.
Position: NO POSITION
AB 1991
Alcoholic beverages: market research study: taste testing.
Aguiar-Curry (D-Davis)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: Would allow alcohol producers to conduct taste testing on their owned and controlled premises and eliminate the requirement that market research be done blind.
Analysis: A short bill that uses few words to create a constellation of opportunities for alcohol producers to engage in old-fashioned corruption. As it stands, producers are allowed to engage in consumer taste tests and similar market research so long as the participants are blinded as to the identity of the producer. This, for all but the biggest producers, means that the research must be recruited and conducted by an outside firm in a neutral location—and even for major producers, the blinding means that there is a limit to how they can recruit. AB 1991 would allow manufacturers to instead hold these tastings on their own premises. As manufacturer premises are remade as vacation destinations, this becomes a thing of significant value on its own. Add in to this the fact that the producers are under no obligation to randomly recruit participants—any regulator, wholesaler, retail buyer, etc. can be gifted up to three days a year at a luxurious Napa estate with a $500 stipend, so long as they give some product feedback. The bill does attempt to define “bona fide market research study,” but all that does is put additional onus on California ABC to play whack-a-mole stopping easily foreseeable opportunities for graft.
Position: OPPOSE
AB 1982
On-sale general public premises: drink lids and drug testing devices.
Lowenthal (D-Long Beach)
Status: Signed into law
Summary: Would remove the sunset date from existing legislation requiring Type 48 (full bar) on-sale licensees to carry testing strips meant to detect the presence of drugs in alcoholic beverages, as well as disposable lids to prevent drinks from being tampered with.
Analysis: AJ has strongly supported the pilot programs for both of these measures in the past, as well as other reforms intended to ensure that drink-spiking victim’s safety and experiences are taken seriously. The incidence of drink spiking remains surprisingly high and is reported by all genders, yet until Assm. Lowenthal’s bills, few preventive options existed. The previous bills also mandated that signage be posted in the bars, and AB 1982 adds alternate language that does not lean on the initial mandatory signage’s use of “roofied”. These days, drink spiking rarely involves rohypnol, AKA roofies, and the slang term may trivialize the trauma victims experience.
Position: SUPPORT
AB 2023
Companion chatbots: children’s safety.
Wicks (D-Oakland), Bauer-Kahan (D-San Ramon)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: Like SB 1119, would put guardrails on AI chatbots’ interactions with youth, including restricting them from encouraging alcohol and drug use.
Analysis: AB 2023 is a mirror bill to SB 1119, and the same analysis applies. Both include language restricting chatbots’ abilities to encourage alcohol and drug use. Based on the shared legislator co-authorships, the two may end up merged.
Position: NO POSITION
AB 2211
Craft distilled spirits manufacturers: license and fees.
Hoover (R-Folsom)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: Gives all licensed craft distillers the option to open a “branch office” away from the main production location, which would come with on-sale service privileges.
Analysis: Tied-house law continues to be bled dry. First producers were granted the right to sell bottles directly from the distillery. Next they were granted to privilege to host tastings before selling bottles. Now they are being granted an additional on-and-off-sale license giving them those same privileges at any arbitrary storefront they deem a branch office. Not only does this create as many new retail licenses as there are distilleries in the state, it creates a massive new enforcement burden on the state ABC and local enforcement. It is hard to overstate the scope of the new retail privileges distillers have been granted since 2020, and with that in mind, it is equally hard to argue that AB 2211 fills any need.
Position: WATCH
AB 2375
Alcoholic beverage control.
Blanca Rubio (D-West Covina)
Status: Assembly Floor (concurrence)
Summary: Revises the nature of the payment structure between retailers and wholesalers, and revises the legal definition of “beer”.
Analysis: A mostly technical bill. It requires payment between retailer and wholesaler to occur when the retailer places the order for stock, not when the wholesaler delivers it. It also lays out the slightly contentious process of getting wholesaler and retailer to agree on an electronic payment system processor. Neither of these have substantial impacts on alcohol harm. The redefinition of beer, on the other hand, does matter somewhat, as beer is taxed at a lower rate than spirits or wines. By allowing various other base grains, the bill could potentially open the doors for less laborious and specialized processes to still result in alcoholic beverages that are legally “beer.” It is worth monitoring to see if this allows more ready-to-drink canned cocktails to reach the shelves at exceptionally low price points.
Position: WATCH
AB 2388
Alcoholic beverages: applications for licenses.
Tangipa (R-Fresno)
Status: Never heard
Summary: Spot language that makes no substantive change to the code.
Analysis: This late in the process, we do not expect to see real language be amended into this bill.
Position: WATCH
AB 2502
Vehicles: driving under the influence: driving automation
Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: Would expand the legal definition of “drive” to include the party responsible for controlling a self-driving car.
Analysis: As recent news indicates, self-driving cars cannot be truly considered self-driving, and treating them as such is a precondition for a catastrophic crash. No matter how sophisticated the software, there will be times when a human must take control of the vehicle. Being able to make that judgment quickly and step in effectively is, obviously, much more difficult if the driver is intoxicated, and the obligation to be diligent falls as heavily on self-driving car owners than on anyone else. Moreover, allowing “self-driving” to exempt the driver from the obligation to be sober creates the temptation for a reckless and intoxicated driver to lie and say they had self-driving mode engaged. And there are already forms of vehicular transport which one can safely use no matter how drunk: buses, light rail, and cabs.
Position: SUPPORT
AB 2663
Alcoholic beverages: retail on-sale license: off-sale privileges.
Roger (D-Ukiah)
Status: Senate Floor
Summary: The “emergency” authorization that allowed restaurants to deliver cocktails-to-go would be extended until the end of 2029.
Analysis: The COVID-era regulatory relief allowing full-bar restaurants to deliver mixed drinks via in-house or contract delivery services was among the more controversial. Research shows that alcohol-on-demand is disproportionately used by those already exhibiting alcohol use disorder and at risk for serious health problems, and major questions about how often these delivery drivers end up selling to minors still loom. But the legislature soldiers on, extending an “emergency” “relief” that is simply no longer necessary at all to guarantee licensees’ economic survival. With the youth access concerns ongoing, and many growing concerns around the delivery companies’ abilities to circumvent tied-house law, the legislature should close this channel until a permanent regulatory structure can be proposed. They have not opted to do that this year.
Position: NO POSITION
AB 2751
Alcoholic beverages: imports: personal or household use: reasonable amounts.
Alvarez (D-Chula Vista)
Status: Held in committee (Senate Appropriations)
Summary: Allows California residents to cross the California-Mexico border with no more than six liters of alcohol per 31-day period.
Analysis: The bill addresses a true mess in terms of U.S. customs. Currently, California residents can bring a substantial amount of alcohol from Mexico by plane, train, or cruise ship, but not by car. There is some logic to that—for instance, bars that obtain alcohol from outside of the U.S. market can engage various kinds of unaccountable and untaxable sales. The proposed limit of 6 liters a month per person does, indeed, provide sufficient quantities for illegal stocking, but that can already happen via bus—bus travelers are permitted 60 liters, which AB 2751 would likewise make a uniform six.
Position: WATCH
2026 Senate Bills
SB 907
Driving under the influence and other driving offenses: comprehensive reform.
Archuleta (D-Norwalk)
Status: Assembly Floor
Summary: Proposes various enhancements to existing DUI penalties.
Analysis: The initial meat of this bill was to propose rapidly escalating penalties for DUI, with an additional three-year term applied for each offense within the past 10 years. That provision was amended out, leaving the penalty enhancements for hit-and-run the only major carceral change. SB 907 was one of the bevy of DUI-related bills seeking to ramp up consequences in the criminal justice system. Many failed, and SB 907, if it passes, will be diminished in scope. The silver lining to these failures is that it encourages legislators to look for more prevention-oriented solutions to dangerous roadways, such as 0.05 BAC thresholds for DUI.
Position: WATCH
SB 917
Alcoholic beverages: certified farmers’ market sales permit.
Laird (D-Santa Cruz)
Status: Signed into law
Summary: Would expand the number of alcohol producers who can conduct tastings at a farmer’s market from 1 to 3 per day.
Analysis: This bill follows on the coattails of the Dry Bar Bill, in that its essential purpose is to expand the consumption of alcohol in areas where it is not demanded or expected. In the case of farmer’s markets, it also might not be safe, as many of these are primarily accessed by car, and considered family events. Based on current epidemiological trends—where deaths and harm are increasing even as average consumption drops—this is hanging its economic rationale on encouraging the people most likely to exhibit alcohol use disorder to never stop drinking.
Position: OPPOSE
SB 1119
Companion chatbots: children’s safety.
Padilla (D-Chula Vista), Wicks (D-Oakland), Bauer-Kahan (D-San Ramon)
Status: Assembly Floor
Summary: Creates a system of guardrails for the behaviors of large language models (LLMs; aka AI) when used by children, including banning them from encouraging the use of alcohol or drugs.
Analysis: AI chatbots and related services have been demonstrated to respond to user prompts in ways that encourage self-harm, reckless behavior, and, in some cases, runaway psychotic ideation. Youth are particularly vulnerable to these effects, and the long-term effects of behavior patterns shaped by LLMs are unknown. At least one thing is well demonstrated, however: as currently programmed, the chatbots will encourage someone to use alcohol and drugs to the point of overdose and death. This risk increases with youth, who have less experience to be suspicious of the chatbot, and less of the kind of experience with recreational drug use that would make them question the advice they were receiving. On top of all that, we simply have no idea what corporate actors could be trying to do to influence chatbot output, up to and including paying some LLM developers for inclusion in content. From a youth alcohol prevention standpoint, the obvious response is just shut it all down and disallow that content from any LLM that can be readily accessed by youth.
Position: NO POSITION
SB 1156
Vehicles: driving under the influence.
Caballero (D-Merced)
Status: Held In Committee (Assm. Transportation)
Summary: Pending an appropriation, requires the DMV to provide printed summaries of DUI and DWI law along with vehicle registration and license application materials.
Analysis: Awareness of penalties is an obvious starting point for deterrence, but this bill seems inconsequential at best. Even the appropriation necessary to pay for printouts of CA motor vehicle laws seems to have been a bridge too far, as it is currently held in the Assembly Transportation committee.
Position: WATCH
SB 1181
Violence prevention, pupil wellness, and school safety grant program.
Hurtado (D-Bakersfield)
Status: Held in committee (Assm. Appropriations)
Summary: Directs the Department of Education to make available local grants for student safety, wellness, and violence prevention—contingent upon securing funds through budget appropriation.
Analysis: Student wellness and the safer school environments are closely related to alcohol and drug use. These grantmaking programs offer the chance to not just lessen the impact of youth alcohol use directly, but to alter the school environment to lessen the stressors that can lead to underage consumption. Alcohol Justice has firsthand experience with the potential impacts of effective youth programming through its NextGen Youth Advocates(tm), and strongly supports efforts to fund those resources statewide.
Position: WATCH
SB 1195
Tied-house exceptions: Counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego.
Rubio (D-West Covina)
Status: Assembly Floor
Summary: Would allow the alcohol industry to enter into sponsorship deals with a number of publicly owned venues throughout Southern California.
Analysis: The almighty alcohol sponsorship deal has driven a great deal of reckless legislation over the past decade. As it stands, the fact that venues have an alcohol retail license should prevent them from entering into sponsorship deals for the same reason Budweiser can’t pay Joe’s Pub to only stock their product—direct financial dealings between producers and retailers are illegal. However, escalating costs of living, endemic budget shortfalls, and a failure to pursue protective public health policy has led to exemption after exemption for college stadiums and event centers. SB 1195 continues this by exempting, not just stadiums, but all kinds of concert venues, fairgrounds, and convention halls. At one point, it even sought to strike an alcohol sponsorship deal with the LA Equestrian Center so that children learning to ride horses could learn about the wonders of Cutwater margaritas-in-a-can at the same time—although some of the more blatantly youth-focused venues were dropped from the bill after CAPA objected. Still, most of these venues still host youth-centered events, and should be the most kid-friendly. After all, public ownership ought to mean that these venues are the least beholden to alcohol money. If any bright side exists, it comes from the fact that the past has shown that a mobilized community can legislate alcohol ads off those facades, exemption or no.
Position: OPPOSE
SB 1273
Alcoholic beverages: tied-house restrictions: instructional events and promotional lectures: advertisements.
Cabaldon (D-Napa)
Status: Senate Floor (concurrence vote)
Summary: Allows producers to create up to 60-second-long videos advertising tastings and other instructional events held at third-party retail outlets.
Analysis: Tied-house law exists for the single purpose of preventing producers from being able to influence retailers in any way. This principle has been chipped away at steadily, especially in the past couple decades, and SB 1273 gives a perfect example of how that happens. Tastings and instructional events held by producers at unaffiliated on-sale licensees’ premises create a means to influence the retailer. They bring in customers and generate additional revenue for the retailer, they create a sense of obligation in the retailer towards the producer, and they place an onus on producers who cannot or will not host equivalent marketing events at the retailer’s premises. This in itself breaks down tied house. But now the allowance for—and necessity of, according to the industry—these events requires that additional loopholes be made in the law, this time in the code that prevents a producer from creating advertising to promote a retailer. Since the events themselves are legal, and advertising the producers’ events are completely legal, ads for the retailers where the producers’ events occur must also be legalized. And now, producers are pointing at evolving trends within social media to assert that this advertising must be a fully produced video. Furthermore, since it is a video for the producer’s event, it should feature the producer’s extravagant premises, not the retailers, even if the premises would normally cost thousands to rent to stage an ad shoot and are not even the location for the event. The rebuttal, of course, is not that these ads are a bridge too far, it is that none of this should be happening in the first place. That first exemption in tied-house law creates the justification for all the subsequent runaway deregulation.
Position: OPPOSE
We are now including in the bill list both the Alcohol Justice (AJ) position on bills as well as the position of California Alcohol Policy Alliance (CAPA) on select bills of concern to the statewide coalition.