September 23, 2004

Devries Column

Napa Valley vintners win one in California Supreme Court—Bronco gets busted

This month’s question:
I heard a report on the TV news a few weeks ago about a company selling its “Napa Valley” labeled wines from grapes that were not grown in the Napa Valley. Can you shed some light on this topic? Isn’t that false advertising? Isn’t this another consumer rip-off?

Maria M.
Almaden Valley

Dear Maria:
Lovers of Napa Valley wines must have had a nice toast a few weeks ago when the court case was announced. The case is entitled Bronco Wine Company v. Jolly (Napa Valley Vintners Association). It was decided by the California Supreme Court on Aug. 5, 2004.

In this case, Bronco Wine Company bottled three brand-name labels, Napa Ridge, Napa Creek Winery, and Rutherford Vintners, among others. The only problem was that these wines were not made from grapes grown in Napa County or in the Rutherford viticultural (wine grape growing) region of Napa County!

Instead, the grapes in question were grown in areas, in the words of the California Supreme Court, “far from Napa, such as Stanislaus County and the environs of the City of Lodi—areas where the cost of grapes, and often their perceived quality as well, is considerably lower.”

At the heart of the legal issue was a four-year-old California wine labeling statute that requires that when the word “Napa” (or any federally recognized viticultural region within Napa County) appears on a brand label, at least 75 percent of the grapes used to make that wine must be from Napa County. (California Business and Professions §25241.) Bronco argued that the California statute was preempted by Federal law that would have permitted the wine making and selling in question.

In a unanimous opinion by the California Supreme Court, the Court held that California’s labeling statute is not preempted by federal law.

Bronco Wine Company is based in Ceres, Calif., just south of Modesto. It had invested several million dollars in buying three Napa brands from Napa Valley wineries over the past 11 years and had recently opened a bottling plant—operated by Barrel Ten Quarter Circle Inc., a co-plaintiff in the case—capable of producing about 18 million 12-bottle cases per year. The Court noted that this “would be more than double the current annual production of Napa-grown wines.”

Bronco also sells “premium wines at affordable prices—including well-known $1.99 Two Buck Chuck.”

Of course, the Napa Valley Vintners Association did not take kindly to the behavior of Bronco. It argued that Bronco’s labels were deceptive and that the California statute controls. For example, with regard to the representative Napa Ridge label, the label listed (in smaller lettering and below the brand name) the “designation” of the wine (the varietal name White Merlot), followed underneath by the “appellation of origin”—the geographic source of the grapes (Lodi).

The representative Napa Creek Winery label listed (in smaller lettering and below the brand name) the appellation of origin (Lodi), followed underneath by the varietal name (Chardonnay).

And the representative Rutherford Vintners label listed (in smaller lettering and below the brand name) the appellation of origin (Stanislaus County), followed underneath by the varietal name (Merlot).

The “back label” of each bottle of wine stated that the wine was “vinted and bottled” by the named winery in “Napa, CA” or in “Napa, California.” Also, many of the Napa Ridge wines included the word “Napa” on bottleneck collars, and some included the word on branded corks.

While much of the California Supreme Court opinion deals with the rather tedious federal preemption issue, it makes for good reading, especially if you are a supporter of truth in advertising. In short, California had every right to make a tighter law than provided by federal standards if it wanted to. And California did so in enacting Business and Professions Code §25241.

In the words of Chief Justice Ronald George, “California is recognized as a pre-eminent producer of wine, and the geographic source of its wines—reflecting the attributes of distinctive locales, particularly the Napa Valley—forms a very significant basis upon which consumers worldwide evaluate expected quality when making a purchase.”

You may read the rather long (65-page) opinion if you wish by accessing the California Supreme Court website: The link is: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S113136. It is also available at www.findlaw.com. Just click on California Supreme Court cases and enter Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly.

I do not know whether any proceedings will be filed in the United States Supreme Court, but given the millions of dollars at stake, it would not be surprising.


Donald J. DeVries

Donald J. DeVries is an attorney practicing law in Almaden Valley. If you would like him to answer your question in his next Almaden Times column, you can reach him by e-mail at don@almadenvalleylawyers.com, fax at (408) 268-6502, telephone at (408) 268-9500, or mail at, 6475 Camden Avenue, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95120. Your matters are personal and private, so of course, he will not disclose your identity or any details about your situation. Want to learn about a specific legal issue or how DeVries can help you? Visit his web site at www.almadenvalleylawyers.com. Almaden Times columns since 1986 are available there. DeVries writes this column to provide you with general information about important legal matters affecting California residents—not to give you legal advice about your specific matter. No attorney-client relationship is created by these articles. The law is complex and constantly changing and varies from state to state. So you should consult an attorney before taking any action that would affect your personal or business matters.