What AB 1826 does
An act to amend Sections 26031.5, 26039.1, 26039.3, 26039.5, and 26039.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to cannabis.
Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), governs the licensure and regulation of commercial cannabis activities. MAUCRSA prohibits engaging in certain commercial activities with cannabis or a cannabis product that is misbranded or adulterated. Among the conditions for which cannabis or a cannabis product is deemed misbranded, MAUCRSA includes packaging or labeling that does not conform to specified requirements. Among the conditions for which cannabis or a cannabis product is deemed adulterated, MAUCRSA includes instances in which concentrations differ from, or its purity or quality is below, that which it is represented to possess.
This bill would revise the standards for determining whether cannabis or a cannabis product has been misbranded or adulterated by eliminating certain conditions, including the conditions described above.
MAUCRSA establishes the Department of Cannabis Control for the administration and enforcement of its provisions. Existing law gives the department various enforcement powers and duties related to the recall, embargo, seizure, and destruction of cannabis and cannabis products that have been deemed misbranded or adulterated, or whose sale would otherwise be in violation of MAUCRSA. When the department has evidence that cannabis or a cannabis product has been adulterated or misbranded or when the department issues an embargo, existing law requires the department to notify the licensee.
This bill would require those notifications to include certain documentation supporting the finding of adulteration or misbranding, or the finding of probable cause to issue an embargo, as specified.
Existing law authorizes a licensee to conduct a voluntary recall of the affected cannabis or cannabis product and to remediate the cannabis or cannabis product, if approved by the department, otherwise, existing law requires the licensee to destroy the affected cannabis or cannabis product under the supervision of the department.
This bill would authorize, rather than require, the licensee to destroy the affected cannabis or cannabis product under those circumstances. The bill would require the department, prior to a voluntary recall by the licensee, to provide the licensee with an opportunity for an informal conference on why the cannabis or cannabis product is considered adulterated or misbranded. The bill would prohibit the department from permitting destruction of the product until either the informal conference process has concluded or the licensee has declined to participate in the informal conference.
Existing law authorizes the department to issue a mandatory recall if the cannabis or cannabis product creates or poses an immediate and serious threat to human life or health, as specified. Existing law requires the department to provide an opportunity for an informal proceeding on the recall within 5 days, as specified.
This bill would require the department to provide the evidence supporting the mandatory recall simultaneously with the issuance of the order. The bill would require the department to provide the licensee with an opportunity for an informal conference on the recall, instead of an informal proceeding, as specified. The bill would prohibit the department from requiring destruction of cannabis or cannabis product prior to the conclusion of either the informal conference process or the licensee’s decision not to participate in the informal conference.
Existing law requires the department to affix an embargo tag or other appropriate marking to cannabis or cannabis product that the department finds or has probable cause to believe is in violation of MAUCRSA, as specified. Existing law prohibits the embargoed cannabis or cannabis product from being removed or disposed of by sale or otherwise until the department or a court gives permission. Existing law authorizes the licensee to request that the department remove the tag or other marking to permit correction if the adulteration or misbranding can be corrected by proper labeling or additional processing, and other requirements are met. Existing law authorizes the department to remove the tag or other marking if it finds that the embargoed cannabis or cannabis product is not in violation of MAUCRSA, as specified.
This bill would require the department to provide the licensee with an opportunity for an informal conference on an embargo, as specified, and would require the department to make a final determination on the embargo order within 15 calendar days from the date of the informal conference. The bill would require the department to remove the embargo tag or other marking within 5 calendar days of finding that cannabis or a cannabis product is not in violation of MAUCRSA, as specified.
Existing law authorizes the department to condemn cannabis or a cannabis product that is embargoed. Existing law also authorizes the licensee or product owner of embargoed cannabis or cannabis product to destroy or remediate the cannabis or cannabis product pursuant to a corrective action plan approved by the department and under the supervision of the department.
This bill would authorize the department to initiate condemnation proceedings, as provided, if the department does not approve a corrective action plan or does not receive a response from the licensee with 7 days of the notice of the embargo.
This bill would prohibit the department from requiring a licensee to conduct a voluntary recall, sign a waiver of liability, or waive any right to an informal meeting or an administrative or judicial hearing or appeal as a condition of the department taking certain actions. Those actions include approving a voluntary recall, authorizing remediation, supervising the destruction of the cannabis or cannabis product, removing an embargo tag, approving a corrective plan, and permitting the destruction of product. The bill would make failure to comply with a condemnation order a separate cause for disciplinary action against a licensee.
Existing law authorizes the department to issue a citation to a licensee or unlicensed person for any act or omission that violates or has violated any provision of MAUCRSA and requires the citation to include a provision that notifies the licensee or person that a hearing may be requested to contest the finding of a violation. Existing law requires the hearing to be conducted pursuant to specified provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act that govern formal hearings.
This bill would instead require the citation to include a provision that notifies the licensee that a hearing or informal conference, or both, may be requested to contest the violation, as specified. The bill would require the informal hearing to be conducted pursuant to different provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, other than the provisions governing formal hearings, and would set forth additional specific procedures for the informal conference. The bill would require a citation issued under these provisions to be issued within 3 years after the performance of the act or omission that violates MAUCRSA.
Summary from the Legislative Counsel's Digest of the amended senate text, June 25, 2026. Read the full text on leginfo.
How it got here
Assemblymember Lackey introduced AB 1826 on February 11, 2026, with coauthors Assembly Members Chen and Hadwick. The text was amended 4 times, 2 in the Assembly and 2 in the Senate, and heard in 7 committee hearings before its final floor votes.
- Assembly Floor, May 27, 2026: 78 ayes, 0 noes.
Committee votes along the way:
- Assembly Business and Professions, April 14, 2026: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary], 19-0.
- Assembly Judiciary, April 21, 2026: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar, 12-0.
- Assembly Appropriations, May 14, 2026: Do pass., 15-0.
- Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development, June 22, 2026: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations], 10-0.
- Senate Appropriations, August 3, 2026: Placed on suspense file, 7-0.
Who supports and opposes AB 1826
The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development analysis dated June 19, 2026 lists 22 organizations in support and 0 in opposition. When Assembly Business and Professions first listed positions on April 12, 2026, the count was 25 in support and 0 opposed. By the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development analysis of June 19, 2026 it was 22 to 0.
In support: CA Cannabis Industry Association (sponsor); Cannabis Distribution Association; California NORML; Equity Trade Network; Origins Council; Humboldt County Growers Alliance; Central California Cannabis Club; Mendocino Cannabis Alliance; and 14 more.
Read the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development analysis.
What happens next
It is in Senate Appropriations. The last recorded action was on August 13, 2026.
The Governor can sign the bill, veto it, or let it become law without a signature. Until the decision, sign and veto request letters are the remaining channel, and the Department of Finance's enrolled bill report carries weight on anything with a fiscal effect. If signed, most provisions take effect January 1, and implementation moves to the agencies named in the bill.
What it means for small business organizations
This is the stage where language still changes. Amendments taken in committee are the ones that reach the Governor, so an organization with a stake in the drafting has a reason to be in that conversation now rather than after the vote.
The small business group at Capitol Axis handles that for small business clients.
Questions about AB 1826
What does AB 1826 do?
This bill would revise the standards for determining whether cannabis or a cannabis product has been misbranded or adulterated by eliminating certain conditions, including the conditions described above.
Has AB 1826 passed the California Legislature?
It is in Senate Appropriations. The last recorded action was on August 13, 2026.
Who supports and opposes AB 1826?
The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development analysis dated June 19, 2026 lists 22 organizations in support and 0 in opposition. Supporters include CA Cannabis Industry Association (sponsor); Cannabis Distribution Association; California NORML.
What happens next with AB 1826?
It still has committee and floor votes ahead of it. Amendments taken now are the ones that reach the Governor, so this is the stage where language changes are still possible.