.png)
Being at the Table: How CaCOA Helped Shape California's AB 2249
By Amy O’Gorman Jenkins, Executive Director of the California Cannabis Operators Association
Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 2249 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, establishing new standards governing cannabis packaging, labeling, advertising, and marketing deemed “attractive to children.”
Let’s begin with an important acknowledgment: many licensed cannabis operators did not like this bill, even in its final form.
Their concerns are legitimate. California’s licensed operators already face extraordinary regulatory costs, while illicit businesses continue to sell products with none of the testing, packaging, labeling, tax, or consumer-protection requirements imposed on the legal market.
For compliant businesses operating on thin margins, another packaging mandate is not a minor inconvenience or a cost that can be quickly absorbed. It means redesign expenses, discarded inventory, operational disruption, and continued uncertainty about how regulators will interpret and enforce the law.
AB 2249 is not the bill CaCOA would have written independently. But the question before us was never whether the industry wanted new packaging legislation. The question was whether the industry would have a meaningful voice in shaping legislation that had become a clear priority for the Legislature and the governor.
I have repeated the same warning throughout my tenure as a lobbyist: If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.
The Political Landscape Has Changed
In 2023, I helped lead a broad coalition of licensed industry organizations in successfully opposing AB 1207, an earlier proposal by Assemblymember Irwin that would have imposed sweeping restrictions on cannabis packaging, labeling, and advertising. Governor Newsom ultimately vetoed the measure after carefully considering the industry’s concerns (a decision for which we remain deeply grateful).
At that time, opposition was the right strategy, and it worked. By 2026, however, the political landscape was materially different.
The California State Auditor’s August 2025 report concluded that unclear rules and inconsistent enforcement were hampering the state’s ability to identify cannabis packaging attractive to children. The audit recommended that the Legislature establish greater specificity around prohibited design elements.
It was followed by a Joint Legislative Audit Committee oversight hearing and heightened scrutiny surrounding youth exposure, intoxicating products, cannabis packaging, and the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) enforcement practices.
Some form of legislation responding to the audit was no longer a distant possibility; it was all but inevitable.
Recognizing the stakes, CaCOA’s Board of Directors exercised real leadership by unanimously endorsing a deliberate strategy of early engagement before statutory language was finalized, and the regulated industry was left reacting to a finished product.
We Began With the Policy, Not the Bill
In February, CaCOA released The Packaging Problem, a white paper developed to move the conversation beyond competing opinions about what might appeal to children.
The paper examined packaging from 162 of California’s most visible cannabis brands and found that most used restrained, adult-oriented designs. It also identified a significant gray area created by undefined and subjective regulatory terms.
CaCOA’s core argument was straightforward. Protecting children and providing licensees with clear, objective rules are not competing goals. Clear standards make regulations more enforceable, compliance more predictable, and enforcement less arbitrary.
That framework became the foundation for more than six months of extensive negotiations with Assemblymember Irwin’s office. CaCOA served as the lead industry negotiator, working through multiple drafts and proposed amendments while consulting with members across the supply chain.
Negotiations were not easy, and CaCOA did not prevail on every issue. But engagement produced a bill that was substantially narrower, clearer, and more workable than where the discussion began.
What CaCOA Achieved
Among the most significant improvements secured through the negotiations:
Clearer and more objective standards. The final law identifies observable design features rather than relying solely on broad, subjective judgments about what may appeal to children.
A substantially narrowed definition of “cartoon.” The law focuses on stylized features associated with children’s animated media, including exaggerated proportions, anthropomorphism, extra-human traits, and highly exaggerated facial expressions.
Narrower fantasy and trade-dress provisions. The final language is primarily or commonly tied to characters, mascots, brands, products, and trade dress associated with children, rather than to illustrative or creative expression in general.
Protection for technology and science-fiction imagery. CaCOA successfully opposed categorical bans on robots, vehicles, spaceships, and similar imagery that could have swept in adult-oriented branding involving machinery, innovation, and emerging technologies. The final law instead focuses on whether the presentation contains identifiable youth-oriented characteristics.
Targeted restrictions on human imagery. Rather than prohibiting people, celebrities, or spokespersons generally, the law focuses on depictions of individuals who are, or appear to be, under 21, and on figures primarily associated with children’s entertainment, media, or products.
Protection for realistic fruit imagery. Proposals that could have swept broadly across fruit imagery were narrowed. Realistic depictions remain permissible when used to accurately identify ingredients or production regions.
A focused typography standard. The final law targets overinflated bubble or balloon styles and typography characteristic of products primarily marketed to children, rather than broadly regulating fonts.
Removal of broader vape restrictions. Language that could have significantly restricted legitimate vape flavor and strain-related branding was removed from the final agreement.
A reasonable implementation timeline. The operative date is delayed until January 1, 2028, giving businesses time to assess existing products, redesign packaging where necessary, manage inventory, and prepare for compliance.
These are meaningful improvements. They do not eliminate every concern about the law, nor do they make the cost of compliance disappear. But they materially reduce the bill’s reach, subjectivity, and potential disruption to the licensed market.
I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that these improvements would not have been possible without Assemblymember Irwin’s willingness to engage in a sustained and genuinely collaborative process. She and I have stood on opposite sides of difficult cannabis policy debates for years, and neither of us entered these negotiations expecting to agree on everything. But she listened, negotiated in good faith, and made meaningful changes, some of which were neither easy nor universally welcomed.
I’m deeply grateful for her partnership and for the trust we developed throughout this process. A relationship once defined largely by disagreement is now grounded in mutual respect.
The Governor’s Swift Action Underscores the Political Reality
AB 2249 passed the Legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support: 69-1 in the Assembly and 38-0 in the Senate. It was formally presented to the governor on August 27 and signed only four days later on August 31.
Notably, the governor also gave the measure unusual prominence. Rather than including AB 2249 in a routine collection of bill signing announcements, his office issued a stand-alone press release highlighting the measure, quoting both Governor Newsom and Assemblymember Irwin, and expressly connecting the bill to the State Auditor’s recommendations.
That level of attention makes one thing unmistakably clear: this legislation was a priority for the governor’s office, and a strategy based solely on opposition was highly unlikely to stop it.
CaCOA’s responsibility was to recognize that reality and work diligently on behalf of our members to secure the best achievable outcome.
Engagement Is Not Acquiescence
Opposition has an important place in advocacy. In 2023, it was the right strategy, and our collective efforts helped secure the governor’s veto of AB 1207. But effective advocacy also requires recognizing when circumstances have changed, and a different kind of leadership is needed.
Engagement is not acquiescence. It requires courage to enter difficult negotiations, confidence in the strength of your policy positions, and conviction to remain at the table even when compromise may be unpopular. It does not mean accepting every premise, abandoning legitimate objections, or pretending that an imperfect law is perfect. It means understanding the political environment, offering workable alternatives, and staying engaged long enough to influence the result.
CaCOA respects the licensees and industry organizations that remained opposed to AB 2249. Their concerns about cost, implementation, uneven enforcement, and the competitive advantage enjoyed by illicit operators remain valid. Those concerns must continue to inform the DCC’s implementation of the law.
At the same time, the final outcome demonstrates why sustained, credible engagement matters. CaCOA brought data to the conversation, developed a policy framework before the bill took shape, listened to our members, negotiated in good faith, and secured significant changes that will benefit the entire licensed industry.
AB 2249 was going to pass. The regulated industry could either help shape it or allow others to define the rules without us.
CaCOA chose to be at the table.
