California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee 3 D cosponsors

AB 766 — Unsealed beverage container portion cap.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, which, among other things, administers various programs that prevent disease and promote health. This bill would prohibit a retailer from selling, offering for sale, or otherwise providing to a consumer an unsealed beverage container, as defined, that is able to contain more than 16 fluid ounces, except for an unsealed beverage container designated for the consumption of water. The bill would define retailer to mean any person, firm, corporation, or business that sells, offers for sale, or otherwise provides a sugar-sweetened beverage to a consumer. This bill would make a violation of this prohibition punishable as an infraction, or a civil penalty in an action brought by the Attorney General, or a district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney, of $200 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation, and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

  6. Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

  7. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  8. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 8 co-sponsors · 113 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Chiu

Co-sponsors (8)

Not signed on (113)

113 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 113 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 766 do?
Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, which, among other things, administers various programs that prevent disease and promote health. This bill would prohibit a retailer from selling, offering for sale, or otherwise providing to a consumer an unsealed beverage container, as defined, that is able to contain more than 16 fluid ounces, except for an unsealed beverage container designated for the consumption of water. The bill would define retailer to mean any person, firm, corporation, or business that sells, offers for sale, or otherwise provides a sugar-sweetened beverage to a consumer. This bill would make a violation of this prohibition punishable as an infraction, or a civil penalty in an action brought by the Attorney General, or a district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney, of $200 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation, and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 766?
AB 766 is sponsored by Chiu, McCarty, Wicks, Buffy (Democratic), Wood, Monning, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Bonta, Mia (Democratic), Travis Allen, and Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 766?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 766?
Track AB 766 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 766

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 766

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →