Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026: AB 1826, AB 1965, AB 2249, AB 2532, and AB 2537

Five separate bills are moving through the California legislature at the same time, and together they touch nearly every part of a licensee’s compliance program; (1) how the Department of Cannabis Control (the “DCC”) investigates and penalizes violations, (2) what gets tested and disclosed at retail, and (3) what a products can look like on the shelf.

As of mid-August 2026, AB 1826 and AB 2537 remain in the Senate Appropriations suspense file, while AB 1965, AB 2249, and AB 2532 have advanced further along the legislative process. None of these bills exist in a vacuum, and operators who wait until they finally pass to start adjusting internal procedures will be playing catch-up.

AB 1826: due process for recalls, embargoes, and destruction

Under the current framework, the DCC has broad authority to issue recall and embargo notices, and licensees have limited formal rights to contest the underlying findings before product must be destroyed. AB 1826 changes that dynamic in several ways.

The bill would create a new “administrative error” category so that certain technical issues—such as nonconforming labeling, track-and-trace clerical mistakes, or minor potency variances—no longer automatically count as adulteration or misbranding. It would also require the DCC to include supporting documentation with any notice of adulteration, misbranding, or embargo, rather than a bare conclusion.

Perhaps most significantly, AB 1826 would require the DCC to offer licensees a mandatory meet-and-confer opportunity within five business days of a notice, and would prohibit destruction of the product until that process concludes or the licensee declines to participate. The bill sets firm timelines throughout: a final determination within 15 calendar days of the informal conference, embargo tag removal shortly after a no-violation finding, and an expedited hearing process for perishable products such as flower and live plants. It also bars the DCC from conditioning any relief, corrective plan approval, or embargo removal on a licensee waiving its right to a hearing or appeal.

For operators, this means building internal protocols now for responding within these compressed timelines, training compliance staff to demand supporting documentation the moment a notice arrives, and factoring the new hold-don’t-destroy framework into inventory and cash-flow planning during any dispute.

AB 2537: a risk-based enforcement framework

AB 2537, the Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act, requires the DCC to adopt a risk-based enforcement framework starting January 1, 2028, prioritizing material threats over minor technical or administrative violations. The DCC would be required to publish an enforcement policy explaining exactly how it plans to triage violations by risk level.

The bill is not purely about leniency, however. It also extends the statute of limitations for MAUCRSA citations to three years after the violating act and adds a right to an informal hearing tied to citations. Operators should read this as a philosophical shift toward proportionality at DCC, paired with a longer window during which historical compliance gaps remain exposed. Risk-based enforcement is not an excuse to relax recordkeeping discipline.

AB 1965: testing, quality assurance, and retail disclosure

AB 1965 focuses on what happens in the lab and at the point of sale. It requires cannabis products to be tested and retested in their final consumable form, and changes how DCC selects batches for that testing. Retailers and other retail-authorized licensees must provide a certificate of analysis to a customer on request, and DCC must be able to obtain off-the-shelf product for unmodified lab testing. The bill also clarifies that onsite quality-control testing does not substitute for certified lab compliance testing, and requires labs to cooperate with DCC evaluation requests.

Retailers need point-of-sale or back-office systems capable of producing a COA on demand without delay. Manufacturers and distributors—particularly those working with edibles or other infused products—should expect closer scrutiny of final-form testing. This is an area that has historically created gaps when formulations change after initial testing.

AB 2249 and AB 2532: a packaging and labeling overhaul

Two separate bills would reshape packaging and labeling requirements, and operators need to track both to avoid falling through the gap between them.

AB 2249 prohibits cannabis products, packaging, or labeling that is “attractive to children” under a newly defined standard. It requires DCC to adopt, by July 1, 2027, a standardized rubric identifying prohibited design elements, along with a voluntary pre-clearance process that lets licensees obtain a written determination on proposed packaging or labeling before bringing it to market. Industry groups have already pushed back on proposed amendments that would restrict vape cartridge labels referencing flavors or strain names, arguing the language is overbroad, so the final scope of the rubric remains in flux. This bill was passed by the Assembly and is currently sitting on Gov. Newsom’s desk to be signed into law.

AB 2532 takes a more direct approach, establishing uniform, mandatory packaging and labeling requirements across the board: tamper-evident and child-resistant packaging, resealable packaging for multi-serving products, and a DCC-issued unique identifier on every package. It sets detailed label content rules covering government warning language, product type, packaging date, cannabinoid content per serving and per package, allergen warnings, and net weight for dried flower. Edibles would be limited to generic food names rather than fanciful branding on ingredient lists, and vape cartridges could not claim to be disposable or suggest disposal in the trash. The bill also contains a built-in trigger that if the U.S. Attorney General formally determines cannabis is no longer a Schedule I substance. At that point, the required Schedule I warning statement would automatically drop from labels.

Because AB 2249 works through a rubric and pre-clearance process while AB 2532 imposes a hard content mandate, a packaging design that satisfies one bill will not necessarily satisfy the other. Design and compliance teams should build in lead time for DCC’s 2027 rubric rollout and plan to use the voluntary pre-clearance process once it becomes available.

How these five bills fit together

AB 1826 and AB 2537 reform how DCC investigates and penalizes violations. AB 1965 changes what gets tested and disclosed. AB 2249 and AB 2532 change what a product can look like on the shelf. A licensee could be fully compliant with every packaging requirement and still face an embargo over a testing or track-and-trace discrepancy, which means compliance programs need to treat these five bills as interlocking pieces of one system, rather than five separate checklists.

Operators that start adapting now, rather than waiting for final enactment and DCC’s inevitable emergency rulemaking, will be far better positioned when these changes take effect.

_____________

For more updates on recent marijuana legislation, including rescheduling and the DEA rulemaking process, please check out these recent posts:

The post Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.