Sign Management Company

Review: This company is sending out "official looking" notices that our Alcoholic Beverage Signage is out of compliance (Which it is NOT).

This notice/letter was sent to our very elderly and sick landlord who forwarded it to us. I am sure they believe it to be real. This company and those like it should not be allowed to send out these types of threatening / marketing letters.Desired Settlement: To be contacted and told to cease and desist from all future marketing ploys such as this.

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response

To Whom It May Concern:

For the record, Sign Management Company (SMCo.) has been in business since 1986... to assist all alcoholic beverage manufacturers doing business in CA to notify ALL ABC licensed retailers of the Prop. 65 state law that REQUIRES retailers to post alcohol warning signs in their establishments; furthermore, Prop. 65 REQUIRES alcohol manufacturers to provide warning signs -- free of charge -- to retailers needing them. Please understand that Prop. 65 puts the legal liability on the shoulders of the alcohol manufacturers to perform this task... unless, of course, a retailer frustrates our efforts to accomplish the sign posting activity. If so, the legal liability for non-compliance thereby shifts to the retail licensee.

Therefore, SMCo. notifies retailers to contact our office so that we may offer said signs. Apparently, the complaintant never contacted our offices to originally request that we send them such signs -- thus our data base does not reflect the apparent fact that this retailer has placed his own signs in accordance with the law?

Instead of reading... and understanding... the "2nd request" letter we recently sent urging retailers to contact us for signs... or to let us know that they are already in compliance with the law... this retailer chooses to ignorantly assume we're not a reputable company when, in fact, we're a respected company performing a "public service" to (ironically) keep retailers (including the complaintant) in compliance with the law. Simply amazing!

In conclusion, let the record show that unless SMCo. gets a return call from this retailer to allow us the courtesy to understand -- and place in our data base the fact that this retailer is in compliance with the Prop. 65 warning sign posting law -- this retailer will no doubt receive another communication from our offices at a future date indicating that we have not heard from them regarding this important legal matter.

We apologize for any inconvenience our recent notification letter has caused said retailer's landlord who received it, but apparently the address it was sent to is what exists in our data base. With that said, we would appreciate a courtesy call from this retailer -- XXX-XXX-XXXX -- to let us know that said retailer is posted in accordance with the law and thus we can indicate as much in our records and they will not receive any future such notifications from our offices. Thank you!

Respectfully,

[redacted] A. [redacted]

President, Sign Management Company

Consumer's Final Response

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

1. Our company is licensed and in compliance with all ABC requirements, signage or otherwise.

2. It is NOT your job to "police" our signage. You stated your organization "assists" with the required signage, that IS your job. Clearly present yourself as such.

3. Your entire condescending paragraph stating we are ignorantly assuming that you are not a reputable company, is offensive. We DO know how to read AND read between the lines of these "official looking" letters which all too often are used as scare tactics.

4. We will not be calling you.

Business' Final Response

To Whom It May Concern--

At the risk of belaboring this issue with a retail licensee who, apparently, refuses to attempt to understand the requirements of Prop. 65, I'll respond to the complaintant's uniformed conclusions and statements on a point by point basis:

1) Complaintant should understand that the posting of alcohol warning signs has NOTHING -- absolutely NOTHING -- to do with ABC... or any such ABC regulations, laws or requirements. It's moreover a general CA -- the passage of Proposition 65, the "Clean Water Initiative" -- that requires all retail licensees selling or serving alcoholic beverages to consumers in this state to be posted with necessary warning signs in compliance with Prop. 65;

2)Complaintant is absolutely incorrect... and uniformed... regarding the legal requirements of Prop. 65 relative to the posting of alcoholic beverage warning signs. Please be aware it IS the alcoholic beverage manufacturers' job to so-call "police" the dissemination, posting and maintenance of said warning signs! As previously stated, Sign Management Company -- SMCo. -- is the company hired by said alcoholic beverage manufacturers to perform such tasks as required by Prop. 65.

If Complaintant took the time and effort to READ the Prop. 65 requirements relative to alcoholic beverages, she would understand that the alcohol warning regulation of Prop. 65 (Section XXXXX.3, (e) 7) states, "For alcoholic beverages, the placement and maintenance of the warning shall be the responsibility of the manufacturer or its distributor at no cost to the retailer, and any consequences for failure to do the same shall rest solely with the manufacturer or its distributor, provided that the retailer does not remove, deface, or obscure the requisite signs or notices, or obstruct, interfere with, or otherwise frustrate the manufacturer's reasonable efforts to post, maintain, or periodically replace said materials."

3) Apparently complaintant does not or refuses to comprehend the simple fact that the law does, in fact, REQUIRE alcohol manufacturers to facilitate this warning sign program; furthermore, our so-called "official looking" notification letter to retailers was intended to be just that -- a formal notification that SMCo., on behalf of all alcoholic beverage manufacturers, is requesting a reply from any/all retail licensees that our office has had no previous contact with to better understand the retailer's level of compliance (or lack thereof) with the posting of said warning sign(s). NOTE: for retailers needing signs, we gladly send them signs free of charge.

4) Complaintant should read closely the wording of that part of the regulation that straightforwardly states that if a retailer frustrates the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's efforts to gain compliance with warning sign placements in his/her establishment then the responsibility is transferred to said retailer to suffer the consequences of failure to comply with the law.

5) Ironically, complaintant continues to insist that her company is in compliance with the alcohol warning sign provisions of Prop. 65? If so, we are pleased to learn of this; therefore, all we are requesting is that we receive a courtesy call so that we may document the retailer's level of compliance in our data base. That way, BOTH the retailer and the alcoholic beverage manufacturers we represent can be assured that each is in compliance with the law. Is this too much to ask? Does such a over-blown reaction to our notification letter by this retailer warrant such a complaint being filed to the Revdex.com? I think not.

Needless to say, SMCo. performs a vitally important service to ALL retail licensees in CA... most of which (thankfully) appreciate our efforts to help them gain compliance with this important law. The efforts of our company are unquestionably done with the best of intentions for the benefit of retail licensees... and alcoholic beverage manufacturers alike... in this state.

Respectfully submitted--

President, Sign Management Company