With wine consumption declining nationwide and California’s winemakers feeling the squeeze, Sacramento has delivered a meaningful win for the state’s wine producers. Senate Bill 917 opens the doors of California’s certified farmers’ markets to winemakers, including many small winemakers who have long been shut out – giving them a new avenue to reach consumers directly.

In January 2026, State Senator John Laird introduced Senate Bill 917 to modernize California’s farmers’ market wine regulations. The California Legislature passed the bill in August 2026, and it was approved by Governor Newsom on August 27, 2026.

Codified at Section 23399.4 of the California Business and Professions Code (the “ABC Act”), the prior law permitted Type 02 winegrower licensees to obtain a Type 79 farmer’s market license to sell at certified farmers’ markets only those wines produced from grapes grown by the winegrower itself. In practice, this requirement closed the door on small, boutique wineries that purchased their grapes from other growers.

SB 917 has updated California’s ABC Type 79 certified farmers’ market wine permit to now allow all wineries, including many small wineries that source grapes from third-party growers, to sell wine and conduct instructional tastings at certified farmers’ markets. For these wine producers, this change means a genuine opportunity to sell directly to the public.

And it doesn’t stop at wine sales! Previously, only one Type 79 permit holder could conduct an instructional or educational consumer tasting a particular certified farmers’ market. Now, with the changes enacted under SB 917, that limit has increased and up to three Type 02/79 licensees are permitted to host instructional tastings during a market’s operating hours, subject to the remaining conditions of Section 23399.4.

Effective January 1, 2027, this new law will expand the sale of wine at certified farmers’ markets to new customers, bringing more booths, more pours, and more conversations between the people who make the wine and those who want to enjoy it.

For further questions regarding SB 917, or other alcohol beverage matters, please reach out to Bahaneh Hobel and DP&F’s Alcohol Beverage Law and Compliance team.‍

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Bahaneh Hobel leads DP&F’s Alcohol Beverage Law and Compliance practice and is a partner in the firm’s Wine Law practice group. She focuses on all aspects of alcohol beverage law and regulation for wineries, breweries, distilled spirits plants, importers, wholesalers and retailers. Bahaneh works extensively with, and represents clients in front of, local, state and federal alcoholic beverage agencies throughout the United States, including the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Bahaneh graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia with a degree in Political Science. She then worked for the United States Solicitor General in Washington D.C. before attending the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where she served as Projects Editor on the California Law Review. After receiving her law degree, Bahaneh served as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard C. Tallman on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then practiced litigation and transactional law at several established law firms, including O’Melveny & Myers LLP.


Nick Conti earned his J.D. from the Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law. He received his Certificate in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine’s Straus Institute, adopting a solution-oriented, creative approach to conflict resolution in litigation matters. Nick earned his B.A. in Political Science from Villanova University.

Prior to joining DP&F, Nick worked in the field of special education law, representing students with disabilities in advocating for appropriate educational accommodations and services.

On August 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) announced a final rule that permanently ends beneficial ownership reporting for U.S. companies and U.S. persons under the Corporate Transparency Act. The rule took effect on August 14, 2026. If your company was formed in the United States, you no longer have to file a beneficial ownership report with FinCEN, and you do not have to update or correct one you already filed. For further detail, FinCEN has posted a set of frequently asked questions.

Background

Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act on January 1, 2021, as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. FinCEN, a Treasury bureau, then wrote the rules. It issued the original Reporting Rule on September 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2024. However, litigation disrupted the rollout; the Corporate Transparency Act’s reporting requirement was challenged in several federal courts, including the Eastern District of Texas in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 758 F. Supp. 3d 607 (E.D. Tex. 2024), and Smith v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 761 F. Supp. 3d 952 (E.D. Tex. 2025), the Northern District of Alabama in Nat’l Small Bus. United v. Yellen, 721 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (N.D. Ala. 2024), and the Western District of Michigan in Small Bus. Ass’n of Mich. v. Yellen, 769 F. Supp. 3d 722 (W.D. Mich. 2025).

Plaintiffs sued on various grounds, including that the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause and that its compelled disclosure of beneficial ownership data is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The courts divided, with the Eleventh Circuit upholding the Act against both challenges in an appeal of the Alabama case noted above (Nat’l Small Bus. United v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 161 F.4th 1323 (11th Cir. 2025)), even as other courts enjoined it, and the Supreme Court stayed one nationwide injunction pending appeal (McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 1 (2025)).

In response to the litigation, FinCEN published an interim final rule on March 26, 2025 that narrowed reporting to foreign companies. The August 2026 final rule makes that rollback permanent and adds further relief.

What the Rule Does

The rule permanently removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. It also exempts foreign companies from reporting U.S. person company applicants, meaning the individuals who helped register the foreign company in the United States, and relieves U.S. persons who hold FinCEN identifiers from any obligation to update or correct the information they already provided. FinCEN has confirmed it will go a step further by deleting information it already holds about individuals it reasonably believes are U.S. persons, such as records tied to a U.S. passport or driver’s license.

Treasury frames the rule as relief for small business owners, which is largely accurate; many larger and heavily regulated entities, such as public companies, banks, insurance companies, and firms with more than 20 full-time U.S. employees and over $5 million in annual gross receipts, were already exempt because they leave a substantial regulatory and financial footprint that makes a separate FinCEN filing unnecessary. The reporting obligation therefore applied mainly to smaller private companies, although the new exemption now effectively removes it for all domestic reporting companies regardless of size.

Who Still Reports, and Where Else This Shows Up

Only foreign entities registered to do business in the United States remain reporting companies, and even they do not report their U.S.-person owners. In other words, if a foreign company that registered to do business here is partly owned or controlled by an American, that American’s identifying details are omitted from the filing.

No other federal agency picks up a general beneficial ownership filing for private domestic companies. Banks must still collect owner information when a company opens an account, but that duty falls on the bank, not the company. Federal securities law still requires large stakeholders in public companies to report to the SEC on Schedules 13D and 13G and Forms 3, 4, and 5, but only for registered, public-company securities.

Elena Moreno is an attorney in DP&F’s Business group. Reach out to Elena.‍

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Elena Moreno assists clients across a broad range of corporate governance and transactional matters. Prior to joining DP&F, Elena practiced in the corporate group of a national law firm servicing the technology and life sciences industries, based out of their Silicon Valley and San Francisco offices. She also served as in-house counsel for a publicly traded technology company.

Elena earned her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School, where she received an Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for her work with the Civil Rights and Police Accountability Clinic. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Government and Spanish from Cornell University, graduating magna cum laude.

For influencers, digital creators, and creative marketing agencies, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has become an essential brainstorming partner. Whether you are using ChatGPT to structure video scripts, Claude to refine marketing strategies, or Gemini to map out a multi-platform social media campaign, these tools provide an extraordinary boost to daily productivity.

However, the way you interact with these platforms matters enormously when it comes to protecting your intellectual property (IP).

Every time a creator inputs a detailed prompt into an AI model, they are sending data across an external network. If a prompt includes a unique, unreleased brand concept, proprietary campaign taglines, or copyrighted visual references, that creative asset could be exposed depending on the platform's terms of service. Without realizing it, creative professionals may be compromising the exclusivity, confidentiality, and legal protectability of some of their most valuable ideas.

The Real-World Risk: Incidents That Prove the Point

If you think data exposure is a purely theoretical problem, documented incidents prove otherwise.

The Samsung Precedent: Samsung's device solutions division officially permitted employees to use ChatGPT on March 11, 2023. Within approximately twenty days, engineers in its semiconductor division exposed confidential information in three separate incidents. In the first, an engineer pasted proprietary source code to fix a bug. In the second, an engineer pasted code to optimize a test sequence for identifying yield and defective chips. In the third, an employee recorded a confidential internal meeting, transcribed it using a speech-to-text application, and fed the transcript to ChatGPT to generate meeting notes. Samsung's response was to ban generative AI tools across company devices and networks on May 1, 2023, and to develop its own internal AI system — later released as Samsung Gauss — with proper data controls.

The CISA Incident (Reported January 27, 2026): In a high-profile investigation reported by Politico on January 27, 2026, Madhu Gottumukkala, the acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), uploaded at least four government contracting documents marked “for official use only”—sensitive but not classified—to the public version of ChatGPT between mid-July and early August 2025. The uploads triggered multiple automated security alerts, prompting a Department of Homeland Security review. Gottumukkala had requested and been granted a temporary exception to use the tool by CISA's Office of the Chief Information Officer as part of an initiative to explore AI tools, at a time when most DHS employees were blocked from accessing it due to data retention concerns. The incident demonstrates that even authorized, senior officials can expose sensitive data through consumer AI tools.

For creators, pasting a client's unreleased pitch deck, a confidential campaign calendar, or a unique brand strategy carries the same fundamental risk of unpermitted data exposure.

The Legal Catch: “Reasonable Measures” of Secrecy

Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), an idea or strategy only enjoys legal protection as a trade secret if the owner takes “reasonable measures” to keep it secret.

Two recent federal court decisions have begun to test this principle in the AI context. In Trinidad v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-06328-JST (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), Judge Tigar dismissed the plaintiff's trade secret claims under the DTSA because she had voluntarily disclosed her allegedly proprietary frameworks to OpenAI while using ChatGPT to develop them—with no confidentiality protections in place. The court applied the longstanding principle from Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1002 (1984), that voluntarily disclosing a trade secret to a party under no obligation to protect it extinguishes the property right. Two caveats are worth noting: the plaintiff appeared pro se, and the court observed that her complaint suffered from multiple other defects, so the decision's precedential weight is limited. Still, the reasoning on disclosure is straightforward and likely to be cited again.

Separately, in United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), Judge Rakoff ruled from the bench on February 10, 2026—with a written opinion following on February 17—that documents a criminal defendant generated using a consumer version of Anthropic's Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The court's reasoning rested on several independent grounds: most fundamentally, Claude is not an attorney, and the court noted that recognized privileges require a trusting relationship with a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties; further, by inputting confidential case material into the tool, the defendant effectively disclosed it to a third party before those materials ever reached his lawyers, and non-privileged materials do not become privileged merely by being shared with counsel afterward; finally, the defendant had not prepared the materials at counsel's direction—he acted of his own volition, so the work product doctrine did not apply. The decision has drawn academic criticism for potentially sweeping too broadly, and the court itself suggested the analysis could differ had counsel directed the use of the tool. Although Heppner arose in a criminal privilege context rather than trade secret law, the underlying principle is directly relevant to creators: disclosing confidential material to a platform that is under no obligation to keep it secret is difficult to characterize as a “reasonable measure” to protect it.

How the Big Three Handle Your Data

The consumer privacy landscape has shifted significantly since the introduction of AI chatbots. ChatGPT and Gemini have long defaulted to using conversational data from free and standard consumer tiers to train and refine their models. Anthropic had previously stood apart by not using consumer data for training by default, but on August 28, 2025, it announced updates to its consumer terms requiring Free, Pro, and Max plan users to make an affirmative data-sharing election. The updated Privacy Policy took effect September 28, 2025, and existing users had until October 8, 2025 to accept the new terms and make their selection in order to continue using Claude. For users who allow their data to be used for training, Anthropic extended data retention from thirty days to five years. Regardless of provider, if you have not actively reviewed and adjusted your privacy settings, your inputs may be in play.

To keep your assets secure, your agency or creator brand should consider employing active prompt engineering guardrails, including the following:

• Toggle Off Model Training. Do not rely on default settings. In ChatGPT, navigate to Data Controls and turn off “Improve the model for everyone.” In Claude, review your model training setting in Privacy Settings. For Gemini, disable your “Gemini Apps Activity.” Note that enterprise and API-tier accounts for all three platforms operate under separate contractual data protections—consumer-tier defaults do not apply.

• Keep Prompts Abstract. Use conceptual framing instead of literal, proprietary text. Instead of pasting a client's actual, unreleased slogan into your prompt, ask: “Give me five variations of a punchy, five-word slogan for a luxury eco-friendly footwear brand targeting Gen Z.”

• Upgrade to Enterprise-Grade Infrastructure. If you or your agency regularly handles sensitive client data, consumer-tier accounts are a legal liability. Enterprise subscriptions and API-tier access contractually isolate your input data from public training pools—a meaningful legal distinction if your trade secret protection is ever challenged.

Generative AI is a great tool for scaling creative output, but its use should not come at the cost of legal protections. By practicing safe prompt engineering, you can harness the power of these tools without inadvertently risking the intellectual property that is core to your business.

Allison N. Berk is an attorney in DP&F’s Intellectual Property group who helps creators scale their business while protecting their brands, campaigns, and ideas. Questions? Reach out to Allison.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Intellectual Property attorney Allison N. Berk focuses on the prosecution and enforcement of client trademark rights, including trademark clearance, prosecution of applications for registration before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and enforcement. Allison has litigation experience representing clients in federal court and before the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. Allison also advises student-athletes and influencers on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and rights of publicity matters. She provides strategic counsel on brand-identity protection and contract negotiations, ensuring her clients maintain commercial control over their intellectual property. Drawing on her background in trademark enforcement, Allison helps athletes and creators navigate evolving compliance standards while securing the long-term value of their personal brands.

Allison earned her J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, her B.A. in International Relations and African/African American Studies from the University of California, Davis. She is Chair of the Sonoma County Bar Association’s Intellectual Property and Business Law Section and is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued an Industry Advisory (Tied House Advertising Exceptions Remain Subject to Specific Statutory Conditions) reminding licensees of tied-house laws that generally prohibit suppliers from giving things of value to retailers. The advisory reminds industry members that activities such as joint advertising between a supplier and a retailer where it is not expressly permitted by an exception in the ABC Act, or “pay to play” (whether directly or indirectly), have always been and continue to constitute violations of the tied-house laws. While it is unclear whether a specific event prompted the Department to issue the new advisory, the following passage suggests that partnerships or sponsorships related to the World Cup (and other future big events such as the 2028 LA Olympics) may have something to do with it:

Business and Professions Code sections 25500 and 25502 … prohibit suppliers from furnishing, giving, or lending money to a retailer. These prohibitions extend to retailers holding permanent licenses as well as temporary licenses or permits, such as for festivals or special events like FIFA World Cup or the Olympics, even if the venues they occur in have some sort of exception. Requiring sponsorship or some joint advertising at an event to have product sold there is a violation of the ABC Act.

While there are a number of ways that special events and festivals can be conducted that allow for industry member sponsorship, and in some cases even joint advertising between suppliers and retailers, the tied-house restrictions prohibiting “pay to play” still apply.

Please contact Bahaneh Hobel (bhobel@dpf-law.com) or John Trinidad (jtrinidad@dpf-law.com) if you are considering sponsorships or promotional relationships to ensure that both your participation and marketing are compliant.

In our blog post on the issue of enforceability of the producer’s lien in bankruptcy , we noted the current difficult and uncertain wine market environment. Since that post, the market has not changed much. Given the risk that a lawsuit against a winery on the brink of insolvency may push it into bankruptcy, and the uncertain treatment of the producer’s lien in a winery bankruptcy, we’ve been asked by grape growers about alternative methods of attempting to collect payment from a delinquent winery. This post discusses the use of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (“CDFA”) complaint process as one such potential alternative. As explained below, although this process is an administrative procedure in the nature of alternative dispute resolution, rather than a lawsuit, it is likely to be taken seriously by respondent winery.

Basic Background

Processors of agricultural products, including processors that handle and process wine grapes (i.e., wineries), are required to be licensed by the CDFA. Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 55521, et seq. Such licensure is in addition to any other licenses that may be required, for example, a winegrower license issued by the California Alcoholic Beverage Commission, or a winery permit issued by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Thus, if a winery engages in a violation of the so-called Processors Law, Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 55601, et seq. , it may be subject to investigation, censure and punishment by the CDFA.‍‍

There’s an app – or at least a government agency – for that

The Processors Law governs wineries and other entities that buy and process agricultural products, including grapes. Under the California Food and Agricultural Code, the failure to pay a grape grower is primarily regulated under the Processors Law. This legal remedy is separate and apart from a breach of contract remedy under the contract (grape purchase agreement) and common law.‍‍

The CDFA has a branch – aptly called the Market Enforcement Branch (“MEB”) – dedicated to enforcement of the Processors Law, so as to ensure confidence and stability in the agricultural marketplace and to protect against unfair business practices between producers, handlers, and processors of California farm products.[1]‍

Among other things, the MEB processes complaints filed by agricultural product producers.[2] Violations of the Processors Law that are relevant to grape growers may include, for example: failure to pay in full, Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55872; failure or refusal to make timely payment as specified in the contract, Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55878; and failure or refusal to render a true and correct account of sales or to pay for farm products received on consignment, Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55879.‍‍

Among other remedies, the processor/winery risks revocation of its processor’s license (which is required for a winery to operate), see , e.g. , Bronco Wine Co. v. Frank A. Logoluso Farms (1989) 214 Cal.App .3d 699, 705, as well as imposition of late charges and administrative fines. Accordingly, wineries tend to take MEB investigations very seriously.‍

So how do I complain?

To file a complaint for failure to pay, grape growers must submit a Verified Complaint [3] to the MEB along with the relevant filing fee (the amount of the fee is based on the value of the debt). Note that any verified complaint must be filed not later than nine months from the date a complete account of sales was due.[4] Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 55745. Make sure to include copies of all contracts, invoices, bills of lading, and relevant correspondence, all in duplicate. Instructions and additional information about the complaint process are available on the MEB website, https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/mkt/meb/complaint_process.html .[5]‍

The Verified Complaint will be served on the respondent winery within five days of the date on which a signed verified complaint, the filing fee, and the denial of federal jurisdiction are accepted by the MEB. The respondent winery will then have 30 calendar days to answer and submit its supporting documents. After receipt and review of the answer, the MEB will issue to both parties a written factual summary based on the documentation that has been filed, typically within 90 days of the date of the initial filing of the verified complaint.‍‍

During the process, it may be determined that the issues involved in the dispute can be remedied by informal mediation with a neutral and unbiased party. However, if a settlement cannot be reached within 30 calendar days after the MEB summary is issued (approximately 120 days from the date the verified complaint is accepted), and for matters involving a debt of $30,000 or less, either the complainant grape grower or the respondent winery can request expedited arbitration, before an arbitrator from a panel of arbitrators registered with the CDFA, upon payment of a $600 filing fee.[6] See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3, § 1703.3(a); Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 56382.8(g).‍‍

Thus, the entire CDFA complaint procedure is, in essence, an alternative dispute resolution process that occurs outside of the courtroom, but under the auspices of a state agency with disciplinary powers. See Bank of Am., N.A v. Cap. Med Farms, LLC (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2025) No. 2:24-CV-02309-DJC-CKD, 2025 WL 1307793, at *1, fn. 3 (“The [California Department of Food & Agriculture] cannot issue judgments but will consider a complaint, a response, and issue factual findings that may lead to further alternative dispute resolution and/or potential disciplinary actions against licensees[.]”) As such, in comparison to litigation, the CDFA procedure is bound to be a less expensive and more streamlined option for grape growers – and possibly also more likely to result in an agreed resolution of the debt.‍‍

DP&F Senior Counsel Ory Sandel is a member of DP&F’s Litigation group.

[1] See https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/mkt/meb/

[2] Note that if a complaint involves fruit moving in interstate commerce, it must first be filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In such cases, the MEB requires a letter of denial from the federal agency before the MEB will take any action. See https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/mkt/meb/

[3] “Verified”, in this case, means that the person signing the Complaint certifies that the statement of factual allegations and description of events, as well as and any attachments to the Complaint, are true and correct.

[4] The nine-month period does not include the length of time it takes to secure a written letter of denial from a federal agency. See id. ; see footnote 2, supra .

[5] The following is by way of general summary only, and should not be relied on in any MEB proceeding. Specific regulations applicable to MEB investigations and procedure may be found in Chapter 2.2 of Division 3 in Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3, §§ 1702 et seq. As with all posts on DP&F’s blog, this post does not constitute legal advice.

[6] See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3, § 1703.3; see also https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/mkt/meb/Forms/New%20forms/Expediated%20Arbitration%20Pamphlet%20_5-07_.pdf

If you have any connection to the Northern California wine industry, you know that glassy-winged sharpshooters (GWSS) were found on grapevines sold at Costco locations in Northern California between April 21 and May 21 of this year. The most recent press release from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is available here.

This is a serious development. These tiny leafhoppers efficiently spread the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa, which is deadly to grapevines, as well as citrus, landscape plants, and many other plant species. The bacterium invades the plant’s xylem (water transport system), is fatal to the plant, and has no known cure. When it infects grapevines, it is called Pierce’s Disease.

If you or someone you know purchased a grapevine, citrus tree, or other fruit tree from a Costco in one of the 24 affected counties (consult the CDFA’s alert page for the county list), follow the instructions from the CDFA, available here, and contact your local County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office promptly. Early detection and rapid response are critical to prevent further spread.

There are online resources to help identify GWSS in its various life stages. However, especially if you live in a wine-producing region, suspected GWSS should be reported promptly to your local County Agricultural Commissioner rather than handled individually, and California has a robust program in place to keep GWSS out of vineyards.

With that in mind, this is an opportune time to highlight the legal framework California has maintained since 2000 to combat this risk to the wine industry, the public–private collaboration that has mitigated past outbreaks, and the tools that enable an effective response when incidents like the recent Costco breach occur.

California’s Pierce’s Disease Control Program (PDCP)

California established the Pierce’s Disease Control Program (PDCP) by legislation (SB 671) signed into law in May 2000, following widespread grapevine deaths in Southern California during the summer of 1999. (Source)

PDCP’s mission is to prevent and contain GWSS and Pierce’s Disease through coordinated statewide and county efforts, including diagnostics, biological control, and research. PDCP brings together CDFA and USDA personnel; County Agricultural Commissioners; growers and wineries represented on the Pierce’s Disease and Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (PD/GWSS) Board; vineyard managers; universities and other researchers; and the nursery and citrus industries. The program is led by a statewide coordinator and supported by staff throughout California. Counties carry out local activities under county work plans submitted to CDFA for approval. PDCP is funded by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an assessment on California winegrape growers, and, at times, the State General Fund.

PD/GWSS Board and the Assessment Fund

Assembly Bill 1394 (July 2001) established an annual, value-based assessment on crushed grapes to fund PD/GWSS research and related activities, and also established the PD/GWSS Board of representatives from the winegrape industry to advise the CDFA Secretary on use of the funds raised by the assessment. The funds primarily support research on Pierce’s Disease, as well as other pests and diseases that affect vineyards.

The grower assessment is currently $1.25 for every $1,000 of the value of grapes delivered for crushing, and it is owed entirely by the grape grower. Although the grower bears the cost, the purchaser of the grapes is responsible for collecting the assessment and remitting it to CDFA, with payment due by January 31 each year for the previous year’s harvest. In practice, many purchasers withhold the assessment from amounts otherwise payable to the grower, while others may choose to absorb the cost. To avoid confusion, grape purchase agreements often include a clause authorizing the purchaser to withhold the assessment from grower payments and remit it to CDFA. Processors crushing under 100 tons are not exempt from these requirements.

Every five years, grape growers vote on whether to continue the assessment. In the most recent referendum, 76.56% of eligible grape growers voted in favor, extending the program through 2031. The next vote is scheduled for Spring 2030, and ballots will be sent to every producer who paid the 2029 assessment.

Elena Moreno is an Associate Attorney in DP&F’s Business group. If you have legal questions about this topic or would like assistance with a grape purchase agreement, please contact us.‍ ‍

What should you do when copyright owners come a-knockin’?

Wineries throughout Sonoma and Napa Valley have recently received legal notices from copyright owner groups, threatening legal action for unauthorized live and recorded musical performances in their tasting rooms, etc. which feature songs subject to copyright protection.

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) are two of the most prominent performance rights organizations which collect license royalties for the public performance of musical works in their catalogs. Public performance is defined broadly under the Copyright Act to include both live performances (aka “covers”) and recorded music played on the radio, on television, or online (e.g., via streaming services without a business account). Performance rights organizations are well-known for bringing suit when their on-the-ground surveillance reveals that a commercial establishment is allowing public performance to take place without an appropriate license.

Since tasting rooms are commercial establishments which fall outside of the private listening license that typically applies when you purchase music, playing music in a commercial environment (i.e., outside the “normal circle of friends and family”) constitutes an actionable copyright infringement of the public performance right of the copyright owner. Businesses that fail to pay the licensing fees of the copyright owner society (such as ASCAP) will be liable for copyright infringement, potentially including an award of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. See e.g., https://www.ascap.com/press/2026/03/3-10-venues-refuse-to-pay-songwriters

If you have not yet been contacted by ASCAP or BMI and know that you are not in compliance but still want to play music in your tasting room, your best strategy would be to subscribe to a streaming service for businesses that will cover licensing obligations with ASCAP and BMI, such as Sirius XM for Business or Pandora for Business. (Note that such plans typically do not cover paid entry or dancing.)

Chris Passarelli is a partner in DP&F’s Intellectual Property group with experience in copyright and trademark issues facing the food & beverage, hospitality and entertainment industries.

Recent news headlines out of France regarding wine barrel management and leasing mainstay H&A Group have sparked concerns within the global wine industry, with potential significant impacts to the domestic and local wine industry’s barrel financing programs.

H&A, a Bordeaux‑based barrel leasing company with a substantial international footprint, has reportedly been placed into judicial liquidation by the Bordeaux Commercial Court in early April, after unsuccessful restructuring efforts.[1] With thousands of clients worldwide—including wineries in California—the liquidation of H&A may have significant legal, financial, and operational implications for wine producers that relied on its barrel leasing and financing structures.

For approximately two decades, H&A operated as a specialized financer of wine maturation, allowing wineries to access barrels without the need for substantial upfront capital expenditures. Through barrel lease and resale agreements, H&A worked with cooperages and wineries across France, Italy, Spain, and the United States, including California, reportedly serving more than 2,000 clients.[2] In late March, H&A announced that it could no longer continue its activities, leaving many barrel suppliers unpaid and looking to the winery recipients for payment. The company has also reportedly stopped taking back used barrels from winegrowers or reimbursing wineries for overpayments.[3]

These confusing arrangements were often integrated into broader winery financing strategies, with barrels contemplated not only as production assets but also as balance‑sheet tools. In many instances, the financial structure of the leasing agreements created assignments to various lending institutions, raising immediate questions to wineries and suppliers alike, such as: Who owns the barrels in use? Can barrels be reclaimed or resold? Are lease payments still due, and to whom?

As a result, H&A’s liquidation is not merely a supplier disruption—it is a multi-level financial event that may directly affect ownership rights, collateral structures, and contractual obligations. Latest reports from France indicate that while the Bordeaux Commercial Court approved the company’s placement into judicial liquidation, H&A may continue operating until May 31, 2026. A new hearing is reportedly scheduled for April 28 at the Bordeaux Commercial Court.[4]

Given the uncertainty and potential exposure, wineries with current or prior H&A relationships should consider:

• Reviewing all barrel lease, purchase, and financing agreements, including choice‑of‑law, ownership, payment obligations, assignments, and termination provisions;

• Preserving records of payments, invoices, and communications with H&A and barrel suppliers;

• Assessing insurance coverage and risk allocation for leased barrels;

• Avoiding unilateral actions (such as disposing of barrels or altering payment structure) without legal advice; and

• Monitoring developments in the French proceeding and any corresponding U.S. filings.

At DP&F, we regularly advise wineries, growers, and industry participants on complex commercial arrangements, disputes, and related risks. We are closely monitoring developments relating to H&A’s judicial liquidation, domestically and abroad, as well as its potential implications for U.S. and California wine industry participants. If your winery has questions about barrel ownership, lease obligations, or risk exposure related to H&A—or if you would like assistance reviewing your agreements—we encourage you to contact counsel.

DP&F Partners Melissa Granillo and Joshua S. Devore are actively working with winery clients on this matter and may be able to assist you.

This post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

As the newly crowned NCAA basketball national champions make their media rounds, you might think that NIL is just about athletes getting paid to play. But NIL is a legal concept that encompasses an individual's right of publicity and allows all individuals, not just student-athletes, to control and profit from the commercial use of their identity

NIL, short for Name, Image, and Likeness, has grown far beyond endorsement deals for athletes. It’s about the core pieces of your identity: your name, your face, your voice, and the ways you present yourself to the world. In a digital world where anyone can build an audience (or be impersonated by AI), those things have real value for everyone.

On March 26, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched a new resource page that centralizes guidance on navigating name, image, and likeness in connection with trademarks and related intellectual property issues. This is a helpful first stop for understanding how branding and trademark registrability intersect with NIL—and why intellectual property strategy matters when your identity is part of your business.

For decades, NIL rights were mostly associated with celebrities. But the internet changed that. Today, anyone can build an audience, create content, or have their image shared widely—sometimes without their knowledge. Therefore, NIL matters even if you’re not signing endorsement deals.

Whether you’re posting on social media, running a small business, or simply appearing in photos your friends share, your identity is out there. NIL gives you a framework for understanding when and how others can use it. Additionally, artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools can now generate realistic images, voices, and videos. That means your likeness can be imitated or misused more easily than ever.

You may have heard that Matthew McConaughey recently filed multiple federal trademark applications tied to his identity. Why does this matter? Because such filings highlight a strategy to safeguard his identity and its commercial value. McConaughey’s attorneys have said that the registrations are meant to combat unauthorized AI apps or users from simulating McConaughey’s voice or likeness without permission.

It's important to note, however, that while NIL rights and trademark rights are related, they’re not the same. NIL protects your identity itself—your name, face, voice, and other personal attributes. Trademarks protect your brand—the source of your goods or services. For many people, the strongest protection comes from utilizing both legal protections where possible. If you’re building a business, creating content, and using your persona as a brand in association with a particular product or service (e.g., CONAN O’BRIEN NEEDS A FRIEND for podcast services), a trademark or service mark registration can help you control how your name, logo, or other brand elements are used in commerce.

NIL is no longer just a sports‑law buzzword. It’s a practical concept that affects anyone who participates in the modern digital world. Whether you’re a student, an athlete, a professional, a creator, or a business owner, your identity has value. Understanding NIL helps you protect that value, make informed decisions, and avoid problems down the road.

For more information about NIL and trademarks/service marks or to discuss intellectual property strategies with our Intellectual Property team, reach out to Joy Durand or Allison N. Berk.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is offering up to $1 billion of financial aid to American producers of certain specialty crops, including growers of wine grapes, through its new Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers (ASCF) program. Per USDA’s recent press release, the goal of the ASCF program is to “help address market disruptions, elevated input costs, persistent inflation, and market losses from foreign competitors engaging in unfair trade practices that impede exports.”

USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is responsible for administering the ASCF program and will issue one-time bridge payments to qualifying farmers. To be eligible for an ASCF payment, specialty crop producers must meet the following requirements:

• Be actively engaged in farming;
• Have risk and interest in the eligible planted commodity; and
  
• Report 2025 planted acreage to FSA by 5 p.m. ET on March 13, 2026.

ASCF payments will be calculated based on reported 2025 planted acres, and commodity-specific rates for ASCF payments are expected to be released by the end of March. The first step for reporting 2025 planted acreage is to email the completed USDA Form AD-2047 (a fillable PDF copy of this from can be found at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/documents/ad-2047) with proof of ownership (deed of trust), lease(s), or property tax statement for the applicable parcel of farmland to your local FSA office (FSA.Vacaville.ca@usda.gov for Napa County).

After submitting the 2025 acreage report, eligible producers must then apply for an ASCF payment online at Login.gov or in-person at their local FSA office. The local FSA office address and contact information for Napa County is provided below. Local offices for other counties can be found at https://www.farmers.gov/working-with-us/service-center-locator.

Vacaville Service Center, Farm Service Agency Office
Attn: Gizela Meirinho Gover
810 Vaca Valley Parkway
Vacaville, CA 95688
E-mail: gizela.gover@usda.gov
Phone: (707) 448-0106

For additional information regarding the ASCF program, please visit www.fsa.usda.gov/fba or contact your FSA county office for further assistance.