Deputy Director Josh Eisenberg explains DCC's disciplinary toolbox and due-process protections

Deputy Director for Legal Affairs Josh Eisenberg laid out the Department of Cannabis Control's enforcement framework and the due-process protections available to licensees during a March 12 committee presentation.

Eisenberg summarized the department's options for addressing noncompliance, from education and notices to comply to citations (administrative fines), embargos and recalls of suspect product, and formal disciplinary accusations that can lead to suspension or revocation of a license. "Protection of the public is the highest priority for the department in exercising licensing, regulatory and disciplinary functions," he said, describing that public-safety standard as the statutory baseline the department applies.

He described progressive discipline as discretionary and fact-specific: inspectors and compliance staff may issue a notice to comply as an early corrective step; citations under Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 26031.5 are intended as a corrective tool (fines may reach statutory maximums depending on the violation); and repeated or egregious violations can be escalated to disciplinary accusations referred to the Attorney General's Office and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Eisenberg said the evidentiary standard at hearing is preponderance of the evidence.

Eisenberg reviewed expedited tools the department can use when immediate action is needed: embargoes to hold suspected adulterated or misbranded product pending remediation or condemnation; mandatory recalls when product poses an immediate and serious threat to health; interim suspension orders (ISOs) and emergency decisions and orders to stop dangerous activity while formal proceedings are prepared. He explained that embargos and recalls include opportunities for the licensee to submit remediation plans, voluntary condemnation, or to contest the department's findings in a condemnation hearing.

On appeals and process, Eisenberg noted multiple administrative routes: licensees may request informal conferences, file appeals of citations within 30 days to preserve hearing rights, or respond to accusations within 15 days to avoid default. He also described the post-hearing process: proposed decisions are issued by administrative law judges, then reviewed by the department's general counsel and the director (who may adopt, modify or reject proposed decisions). Licensees retain options for judicial review and appeals to the Cannabis Control Appeals Panel as statutory procedures allow.

Members asked practical questions about representation, timelines and proportionality. Eisenberg said licensees are not guaranteed appointed counsel (these are administrative proceedings, not criminal trials) and may represent themselves or hire counsel at their own expense; he recommended filing appeals within statutory time windows if a licensee intends to pursue a formal hearing. On timelines, he said condemnation and hearing calendars can move quickly once pleadings are filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, but the schedule is fact- and case-dependent and often reflects the licensee's engagement in remediation.

Committee members and multiple public commenters pressed the department on proportionality of fines, especially for small operators who say large per-day citation formulas can threaten business viability. Eisenberg said the department considers three primary factors when imposing citation fines: the gravity of the violation, the licensee's good-faith efforts and mitigation, and the licensee's history of prior violations. He added the department also considers financial ability to pay during settlement negotiations and that disciplinary guidelines (including proportional fine formulas) are under review for updates.

Industry speakers and small cultivators raised operational concerns about notices and service of process, inconsistent inspector practice, and embargos tied to track-and-trace ("metric") tagging gaps. Eisenberg acknowledged the department is constantly refining service practices and that DCC has vacated default decisions when it determined a licensee had not received notice; he said the department aims to make investigation files and decisions more transparent on the DCC website and to provide clearer guidance about recalls, SOPs and remediation pathways.

Eisenberg closed by reiterating the stated balance of goals: educate and support licensees to achieve compliance, and act decisively to remove bad actors from the licensed marketplace when necessary to protect public health and market integrity. The committee took questions from members and received additional public comments after the presentation; no motions were associated with this agenda item.