A Setback, Not the End

What We Learned from AB 1585 and What’s Next

A few weeks have passed since the defeat of AB 1585, which is enough time to reflect on what happened rather than simply react to it. Looking back, there are three questions worth answering: What happened? What did we learn? And where do we go from here?

What Happened

For anyone who needs the basics, AB 1585 proposed a simple standard: if a bottle is labeled “American,” the grapes should be American-grown. It passed the Assembly 67-0. It never received a vote in the Senate.

You’ve probably seen the narrative that the author “pulled the bill,” as if it were a voluntary decision. It wasn’t. There’s a real difference between choosing to withdraw a bill and being backed into a corner until withdrawing is the only option left. That’s what happened here.

A bill that earned unanimous support in one chamber couldn’t even receive an up-or-down vote in the next. Regardless of where you stood on the issue, legislation with that level of bipartisan support deserved the opportunity to be debated and voted on.

In the weeks before the bill was ultimately pulled, the chair of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee made her opposition to AB 1585 clear to the bill’s authors and committee members. Just days before the scheduled hearing, the committee released its analysis, a document intended to inform members as they evaluate legislation. The analysis reflected many of the same arguments advanced by the opposition while giving comparatively little attention to the broad coalition supporting the bill.

Those developments made it clear the bill no longer had a viable path forward in committee.

In the weeks since, we’ve felt the disappointment in conversations with growers, wineries, and industry partners across the state. Many remain in disbelief that a bill with such broad coalition and legislative support could end as it did. While some may claim victory, make no mistake: this is a loss for the entire California wine industry.

The bill ultimately failed because a few of California’s largest wine companies, which all operate globally, and the trade association representing them, prioritized preserving the flexibility to source lower-cost imported wine over strengthening the connection between an American label and the American growers behind it.

Every industry eventually reaches moments that force a real choice. Protect the status quo, or invest in the future. Serve a handful of the largest players, or strengthen the industry as a whole. AB 1585 was one of those moments.

What We Learned

AB 1585 did more than draw a line around one word on a label. It exposed deeper structural issues facing our industry.

A bill this straightforward proved remarkably difficult to argue against on its actual terms. Instead, the conversation shifted to almost anything but the simple question the bill asked.

Opponents of AB 1585 argued that imported wine improves the flavor of American wine. We were told consumers don’t really care whether a bottle labeled “American” is made from American grapes. We were told California doesn’t produce enough Sauvignon Blanc or Pinot Grigio to meet demand. And we were told that preserving other labeling claims was more important than defining what “American” means.

Together, those arguments asked California growers to believe that imported wine improves quality, that consumers don’t care where their grapes come from, and that California can’t grow enough grapes, even as vineyards across the state are being removed because growers can’t find a home for their fruit.

It’s difficult to imagine a more dismissive message to the growers and wineries who have spent generations building the reputation of California wine.

And of course, if the word “American” on a wine label doesn’t really matter, why was so much time and political capital spent ensuring a bill that simply defined that word never received a vote?

What began as a truth-in-labeling bill ultimately exposed a much larger debate about the future of California wine, who it should serve, what consumers should be able to trust, and whether multigenerational family farms still have an equal voice in shaping the policies that determine their future.

Demand Matters, But So Does Supply

Perhaps the most revealing moment came after the bill’s defeat, when the conversation immediately shifted to the need to “refocus on demand-building.”

Demand absolutely matters, and CAWG has consistently supported efforts to rebuild it because California wine needs consumers. But that shift raises an important question: How do you build demand for California wine while continuing to defend the imported bulk wine that competes directly with California growers?

You cannot build a future for California wine on grapes that are no longer in the ground. Selling more California wine without protecting the vineyards behind it doesn’t secure a future for California wine. It secures a future for the global wine trade instead.

And if we continue allowing imported bulk wine to displace domestic grapes while still benefiting from the word “American” on the label, we’re asking growers to compete on a tilted field and calling it unity.

Growers have heard the statements about supporting farming families and standing together as an industry before. Those words are encouraging, right up until solidarity actually costs something. Growers asked for one concrete step in their direction. Instead, they were told to focus on demand.

Supply and demand aren’t competing priorities. California wine can’t survive without consumers, and it can’t survive without the vineyards that grow its grapes. Lose the vineyards, and there’s nothing left to promote. Protecting one without the other is not a strategy for long-term success.

Where We Go From Here

The defeat of AB 1585 doesn’t end this conversation. If anything, it brings into focus exactly how crucial it is that this work continues.

CAWG remains committed to ensuring that when a consumer picks up a bottle labeled “American,” it is made with American-grown grapes—and supports the growers and communities that made the bottle possible. While the path forward may look different than it did six months ago, the objective has not changed.

Of equal importance is the coalition that emerged around AB 1585, which is standing strong. Growers, family wineries, regional organizations, and consumers all banded together. This has become the foundation for what’s next.

Since the bill’s defeat, CAWG has regrouped with our stakeholders to establish a clear strategy on next steps, with work well underway. We look forward to sharing more with our members as these efforts continue to develop.

Although AB 1585 did not become law, an invaluable achievement developed through the process. A broader conversation was ignited about wine industry transparency, fairness, and the future of California wine. The enormous momentum generated by this bill shows how deeply people connected with a simple mission that almost everyone who touches the domestic wine industry could get behind. We intend to carry that momentum forward.

Where CAWG Stands

CAWG carries California in its name because California’s winegrape growers are who we represent. We partnered with Family Winemakers of California because California wineries are who they represent. That deeply held responsibility doesn’t change because AB 1585 failed.

Today, CAWG is advocating for growers in Sacramento, Washington, D.C., and wherever decisions affecting California winegrape growers are being made. Whether it’s protecting the integrity of American wine labeling, advancing sound trade policy, strengthening risk management tools, addressing labor and water challenges, or rebuilding demand, every effort is guided by one mission: protecting the long-term viability of California winegrape growers and the communities they sustain.

We’re grateful to the members of CAWG and Family Winemakers of California, along with the many growers, wineries, regional organizations, consumers, and elected leaders who stood with us throughout this effort. We are especially thankful to Assemblymembers Damon Connolly and Rhodesia Ransom for their leadership and commitment to our industry.

The challenges facing our industry are real, but so is our resolve. CAWG was founded to be the voice of California winegrape growers, and that is exactly what we will continue to be. AB 1585 marked the end of one legislative effort, but it did not mark the end of our pursuit of truth in labeling, fairness for American growers, and a stronger future for California wine.

Natalie Collins
California Association of Winegrape Growers