California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 3 D cosponsors

AB 764 — Sugar-sweetened beverages: nonsale distribution incentives.

Last action — Died on inactive file.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  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 “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 to prevent disease and promote health. Existing law also regulates certain advertising and promotion practices related to specific products, including by prohibiting the nonsale distribution of smokeless tobacco or cigarettes in designated places and the giving away of premiums, gifts, or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, except as specified. This bill would regulate promotion and marketing activities related to sugar-sweetened beverages, as defined, by prohibiting a beverage company, as defined, manufacturer, or distributor, as defined, from giving or offering incentives or other financial support to compensate distributors or retailers for the cost of promotional offers, coupons, or other incentives offered to consumers for branded products of the beverage company. The bill would exempt from that prohibition contracts between a beverage company, manufacturer, or distributor and a theme or amusement park, zoo, other attraction, or professional sports stadium that include nonfood promotions. The bill would authorize local governments and the Attorney General to impose civil penalties for a violation of the prohibition, as specified. The bill would state that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances related to promotional and marketing activities for sugar-sweetened beverages that are not inconsistent with these requirements, including ordinances that impose additional or more restrictive requirements on those activities.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Died on inactive file.

  2. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Bonta.

  3. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 2036.)

  4. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  5. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  6. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (May 16).

  7. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  8. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Read second time and amended.

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 4.) (April 9).

  11. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

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

  13. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

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

  15. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 6 co-sponsors · 115 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (6)

Not signed on (115)

115 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 115 →

"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

Votes

Do pass as amended.

Passed 10 Yea · 4 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4102
Unaffiliated 6302
Total 10404
% of votes cast 56%22%0%22%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Chau — Yea
Brough — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Maienschein — Not Voting
Diep — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Nay
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 8 Yea · 4 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4203
Democratic 4100
Republican 0100
Total 8403
% of votes cast 53%27%0%20%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Burke — Yea
Wood — Yea
Santiago — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Mayes — Not Voting
Rodriguez — Not Voting
Nazarian — Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Nay
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety healthcare agriculture
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 764 do?
Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, which, among other things, administers various programs to prevent disease and promote health. Existing law also regulates certain advertising and promotion practices related to specific products, including by prohibiting the nonsale distribution of smokeless tobacco or cigarettes in designated places and the giving away of premiums, gifts, or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, except as specified. This bill would regulate promotion and marketing activities related to sugar-sweetened beverages, as defined, by prohibiting a beverage company, as defined, manufacturer, or distributor, as defined, from giving or offering incentives or other financial support to compensate distributors or retailers for the cost of promotional offers, coupons, or other incentives offered to consumers for branded products of the beverage company. The bill would exempt from that prohibition contracts between a beverage company, manufacturer, or distributor and a theme or amusement park, zoo, other attraction, or professional sports stadium that include nonfood promotions. The bill would authorize local governments and the Attorney General to impose civil penalties for a violation of the prohibition, as specified. The bill would state that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances related to promotional and marketing activities for sugar-sweetened beverages that are not inconsistent with these requirements, including ordinances that impose additional or more restrictive requirements on those activities.
Who sponsors AB 764?
AB 764 is sponsored by Wood, Chiu, Wicks, Buffy (Democratic), Monning, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Bonta, Mia (Democratic), and Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 764?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 764?
Track AB 764 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 764

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 764

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →