Winery Challenges Santa Barbara County’s Funding Program
A small winery in Lompoc has taken legal action against Santa Barbara County in federal court, claiming local officials enforced a funding program that compelled businesses to contribute to marketing and advocacy efforts that they did not support.
Flying Goat Cellars, which was started in 2000 and is operated by Norm Yost and Kate Griffiths (also referred to in the suit as Kathleen Griffiths), has filed its case in the U.S. District Court for Central California.
The complaint names the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, the Santa Barbara County Winemaking Association, and District 4 Supervisor Bob Nelson, who also acts as the board’s chair.
The crux of the disagreement revolves around the Wine Business Improvement District, established in February 2025.
The Board of Supervisors approved this initiative unanimously, mandating a 1% fee based on winery sales, which includes tasting room purchases, wine club sales, event tickets, food, and merchandise.
County officials expect this program to generate approximately $1.5 million each year, with all funds directed toward promoting the area’s tourism and wine sectors.
However, Flying Goat contends that this situation entails more than just straightforward taxes or fees.
According to the winery, the system effectively obliges them to join the Santa Barbara County Winemaking Association, the entity that oversees the district and makes decisions regarding the allocation of funds for promotional activities and advocacy.
The complaint asserts that this arrangement coerces wineries into financing communication and lobbying efforts with which they may not necessarily align.
Additionally, it argues that the association’s marketing strategies aim for broad regional outreach and international exposure, which doesn’t align with Flying Goat’s focus on nurturing direct customer relationships in Lompoc and nearby areas.
Yost expressed that Flying Goat’s success hinges on building personal connections with customers visiting the winery, rather than participating in widespread marketing campaigns aimed at broader markets. He stated, “Our vision for Flying Goat and the Wine Growers Association’s vision for Santa Barbara’s wine industry are not the same.”
The lawsuit, supported by the Goldwater Institute’s Schaaf Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and the Friedland Cianfrani law firm, claims the policy violates the First Amendment by compelling private businesses to support views and associations they oppose. Furthermore, it raises Fifth Amendment issues, asserting that private funds are being funneled towards private groups without serving a legitimate public purpose.
Goldwater Institute Chief Counsel Adam Shelton indicated that constitutional rights were being disregarded. He mentioned, “The Supreme Court has clarified that the government cannot force individuals to subsidize opinions they disagree with,” adding that it also acknowledged the basic right not to be compelled to join a private organization. He states that the county’s directive infringes upon both of these rights.
The filing also mentions that Flying Goat made attempts to communicate with the Vintners Association to opt out of the program but received no reply. It highlighted concerns voiced by Mr. Griffiths during the Board of Supervisors meeting in February 2025, where he pointed out that wineries would incur additional expenses to adjust their operations to accommodate the new fees.
However, the board did not address these earlier concerns, which left the winery with no choice but to pursue legal action, as indicated in the complaint.
Flying Goat is seeking reimbursement of fees already paid, legal expenses, and a nominal $1 in damages for claimed civil rights violations.
This case introduces significant legal scrutiny on the county’s tourism-funded marketing strategies and raises broader questions about the extent to which local governments can mandate participation in industry-wide promotional groups.
