By Staff Report Monday, May 25th, 2026

Attorneys for Flying Goat Cellars, an independent winery based in Lompoc, have made good on their promise to sue Santa Barbara County and the Santa Barbara Vintners Association over the county’s Wine Business Improvement District.

The suit was filed May 21 in the U.S. District for the Central District of California. It claims the winery’s civil rights were violated when the district was formed in 2025 over the objection of smaller wineries.  

Plaintiffs “attempted to remedy this violation” by writing to the board raising objections and but were rebuffed, wrote attorneys for the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based pro-business organization that represents winery owners Norm Yost and Kate Griffith. Neither the county nor the Vinters Association responded to the Business Times when it asked them to comment on the original letter sent in March.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether the county and the Vintners can compel Flying Goat to join the district, pay 1% of its tasting room revenue as a fee and join the Vintners Association. The district was formed to help market Santa Barbara County wines and the Board of Supervisors designated the vintners’ group to run the district and collect the fees.

The suit argues that it is unconstitutional for the district to compel Flying Goat’s owners to “subsidize speech and advocacy with which they disagree,” to take their “money without a legitimate public use” and to “join the SBCVA.” 

According to the suit, an earlier effort to collect the marketing fee voluntarily resulted in just 30% of wineries contributing while 70% declined to participate. A majority of weighted responses supported the wine district when it came before the board of supervisors in 2025, but the weighting system diminished the influences of smaller wineries, the suit said.

The suit seeks an injunction to stop the vintners from collecting the fee as well as monetary damages. If the mandatory fee was called a “tax” it would require a vote; as a “fee” the plaintiffs should have a right to opt out, the suit alleges. The case number is 2:26-cv-5489.