Arizona Confirms a Minor Change to its Direct-To-Consumer Law
May 6th, 2008
The Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control has confirmed a minor change to its direct-to-consumer wine shipping regulations, effective immediately. Under the original interpretation of the direct shipping law Arizona residents could not receive direct-to-consumer wine shipments unless they purchased the wine on-site, and shipments did not exceed 2 cases per consumer per year.
The new interpretation of the law allows wineries to ship to Arizona consumers, as long as the consumer has physically visited the winery at anytime during the calendar year prior to placing the order. Now Arizona consumers who have visited the winery may place off-site orders and have multiple shipments of wine sent to them so long as the combined shipment (throughout the calendar year) does not exceed the 2 case limit. If Arizona consumers wish to have additional wine shipped to themselves in subsequent years, they will need to physically visit the winery each and every year. There continues to be no reporting, tax or permit requirements under the “on-site shipping lawâ€.
Please visit the Wine Institute website for additional information about shipping to Arizona s or contact Annie Bones, State Relations Coordinator, Wine Institute, at 415-356-7530 or abones@wineinstitute.org.
*The rules and requirements for wineries producing up to 20,000 gallons of wine in a calendar year with an approved direct-to-consumer permit/ self-distribution license are not affected by this change.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
Florida escapes capacity cap at the wire
May 4th, 2008
It came down to the wire, but the always heated battle in Florida ended with the legislative session closing on Friday with no bills making it out of the state congress. Multiple bills were considered for wine direct shipping, most of which included a “capacity cap” on annual production for wine shippers. The major winery associations opposed all bills that included a capacity cap, and were therefore mostly pleased when the final bell rang without the passage of a restrictive bill. This was a truly classic battle between winery associations and the powerful wine wholesaler lobby.
Lacking legislation that would have created a permit system, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) will likely maintain the status quo, meaning that wineries can ship to Florida without a permit as long as they remit excise taxes and do not ship to dry counties.
The scene at the Direct to Consumer Symposium in Napa on Friday was very interesting. Many attendees were listening to the “state of the states” update on direct shipping legislation, while we simultaneously received updates on the status of the session in Florida. Much of the two day event covered the subject of capacity caps, which have become an extremely hot topic of late. The Family Winemakers of California are currently making their case against the State of Massachusetts that production caps are unconstitutional. The action heats up again at the end of July.
Update Your Address Books: New Hampshire Has a Revised Direct Shipping Monthly Report
April 25th, 2008
New Hampshire has updated their Monthly Direct Shipping Report Form. According to the NH Bureau of Enforcement, many wineries have been sending this report to the wrong address; the new form has been issued in part to remedy the incorrect send-to address. The new form is in an Excel format for easier use, and will automatically calculate the total due, based off of the invoice totals that you enter. The new form is available on the NH Liquor Commission Website. You can also view the new form by clicking here.
Make sure your records are up to date with the current contact info for the NH Bureau of Enforcement:
Mailing Address (send your returns to this address):
Bureau of Enforcement
Direct Shipping
PO Box 1795
Concord, NH 03302-1795
Physical Address:
Bureau of Enforcement
Direct Shipping
10 Commercial St
Concord, NH 03301
Tel: (603) 271-8543
Fax: (603) 271-3758
Though the updated form is in an electronic format, New Hampshire does not allow you to submit copies of invoices or payment electronically. You can only send in an electronic version of the Direct Shipping Monthly Report if you have zero orders to report; you can send zero order reports to directshippers@liquor.state.nh.us.
Illinois Direct-to-Consumer Permit Applications Available
April 24th, 2008
The Illinois Direct-to-Consumer Permit applications are now available on the Wine Institute and Illinois Liquor Control Commission’s websites. Beginning June 1, 2008 wineries will be required to have an “Out-of-State Winery Shipper’s License,†file reports, obtain a bond and pay sales and excise tax in order to ship wine to consumers in Illinois. Wineries with a valid Shipper’s License issued by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission will be permitted to ship up to 12 cases a year to a consumer who is 21 years of age or older, an increase over the 2 case annual limit in the reciprocity law being replaced.
The application process separates wineries into 3 classes based on the total of gallons manufactured annually. The license for each class varies. Class 1 wineries have a $150 license fee and produce less than 250,000 gallons annually. Class 2 consists of wineries producing more than 250,000 gallons but less than 500,000 gallons annually. The license fee for Class 2 is $500.00. Class 3 wineries have a $1000.00 license fee and manufacture 500,000 gallons or more annually. A copy of the applicant’s state manufacturer’s liquor license (Class 02 Winegrower’s license in CA) and copies of all federal label approvals must be submitted with the license application. Brands not already registered with the Commission must be registered prior to, or simultaneously with, the direct shipper application filing. Class 1 wineries may apply for self-distribution privileges by completing the “Self-Distribution Exemption†form. Class 2 and 3 wineries are not eligible to self-distribute in Illinois.
Once the Illinois Winery Shipper’s License is issued, the Illinois Department of Revenue will mail the permit holder the Liquor Direct Shipper Wine Return Tax form. Excise taxes must be paid monthly and there is a $1000.00 bond requirement. The permit holder has the option to pay excise taxes electronically or by mail. Permit holders are responsible for paying sales tax. The Department of Revenue has not published instructions for sales tax registration at this time. As soon as the information becomes available it will be posted on the Wine Institute website. Should you have any questions please contact the Wine Institute State Relations Department at 415-356-7530.
Annie Bones | State Relations | Wine Institute
Wine Is Not the Maine Event
April 18th, 2008
A bill that would have allowed in-state and out-of-state producers, suppliers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers to ship wine to Maine consumers passed through the Senate but after a close vote, died on the House floor yesterday evening. If LD1987 (a.k.a. SP781) would have passed as amended by the Senate, the bill would have allowed licensed entities to ship up to 108 Liters of wine to an of-age individual in a calendar year. Other requirements:
- Containers of wine shipped cannot be smaller than 750 mL
- Report and pay sales and excise taxes
- The bureau may adopt rules requiring specific labeling and registration requirements for direct shippers
- “The direct shipper or 3rd party carrier contracted by the direct shipper… check for a valid form of identification demonstrating proof of age.” Common carriers register with the state of Maine.
LD 1987 went far in its legislative journey before failing in the House. The bill would have been a step forward for Maine consumers and offered wine producers, retailers, and wholesalers alike an equal opportunity to ship wine directly to eager consumers.
More Events - come join us!
April 12th, 2008
ShipCompliant will be participating in two events this month. If you are in the area, please try to attend!
Women for WineSense
Professional Members Only - Real Life Compliance Solutions
This event is meant to supplement the full-day TTB seminars occurring in the area at the same time. A legal overview will be provided by Susan Cagann, Special Counsel, Farella Braun + Martel. She will cover state and federal trade practice law along with legal issues concerning advertising, marketing and distributing wine.
If you are interested in attending the event or joining their Professional Members group, please send WineSense an email.
Christina Carr, Marketing Manager at Gundlach Bundschu will host the marketing panel consisting of ShipCompliant and New Vine Logistics presidents, Jason Eckenroth and Katie Hoertkorn. The companies will review best practices and provide actionable advice on direct shipping compliance.
WHEN: Wednesday, April 23 — 530-8PM
WHAT: Real-life Compliance solutions - legal and marketing.
TASTE: Our program will be accompanied by fine Mondavi wines paired with tasty hors d’oeuvres.
WHERE: Robert Mondavi Winery, Highway 29, Napa
COST: $20 Professional members, $35 invited non-members
Wine 2.0 Spring Fling
ShipCompliant’s Software as a Service (Saas) approach of enabling any technology system to integrate our best of breed compliance web services is well received among Wine 2.0 companies. Join the Wine 2.0 crowd at Crushpad on April 24th and meet some of our staff in person. They expect more than 200 attendees to enjoy an evening of great wines at Crushpad’s new urban winery location.
EVENT SPECIFICS
WHEN:
Thursday
April 24th
7pm - 10pm
WHERE:
Crushpad, Inc.
2573 3rd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
DIRECTIONS
Caps Off to Dolan’s Intentions
April 11th, 2008
In October of last year, wineries began shipping directly to Ohio residents under a new direct shipping permit law. When the provisions of the law in Ohio were first announced, one of the major subjects of controversy was the capacity cap, which only allows wineries that produce less than 150,000 gallons annually to obtain a permit. Capacity caps continue to be a subject of controversy in all the states that use them (currently Arizona, Massachusetts, Indiana Kentucky and Ohio; Florida could adopt a 250,000 gallon cap if SB1096 or HB1293 is passed).
Continuing the controversy, Ohio Representative Matthew J. Dolan is looking to increase the capacity cap for wineries from 150,000 to 250,000. Though the increase in production volume may be a “little step” in the right direction, it certainly seems like a very little step, allowing only 17 more California wine labels to be shipped to Ohio residents. According to The Plain Dealer, Dolan originally vowed to eliminate the cap altogether, but got a lot of pushback from the Ohio Department of Commerce and from Ohio Distributors (as Uncorked points out, “no surprise”).
Just next door, Indiana also prevents wineries producing over a certain amount of wine per year from shipping directly to its residents. Indiana’s original capacity cap was 500,000, but will increase on July 1, 2008 to 1,000,000 gallons since SB0107 was signed on March 13th by governor Daniels. Though this is the highest volume cap of the four states that have said restrictions,
Many will agree that any permit system that discriminates against a winery for the amount of wine produced is not an ideal permit system. Furthermore, the constitutionality of these caps is being challenged through litigation (see Family Winemakers of California vs. Jenkins). State legislators may adopt a capacity cap restriction for any number of reasons, but none of them seem very fair. The state may claim that it is trying to protect its own wineries by establishing the volume cap just above that of the highest producing in-state winery, but who else is being protected while the consumer’s interests fall by the wayside?
Update: In our original post, we mistakenly stated that that Indiana has a capacity cap that is similar to OH, KY, MA, and AZ. The 500,000 gallon “cap†in Indiana that will increase to 1,000,000 gallons on July 1st, 2008 only applies to wineries in that the applicant must not sell more than this amount of wine per year IN Indiana, excluding wine shipped to an out-of-state address.
Direct to Consumer Symposium - May 1st and 2nd 2008
April 10th, 2008
Direct to Consumer Symposium
May 1-2, 2008
Meritage Resort, Napa, CA
Proceeds to Benefit Coalition for Free Trade and Free the Grapes!
Register here
Sessions will include:
- Who Is Buying? Consumer Research Findings
- Starting a Winning Direct Marketing Program
- Direct to Consumer Legislation and Enforcement
- Using Food & Wine Marketing to Increase Tasting Room Traffic
- Strategies & Best Practices to Grow Direct to Consumer Sales
- Litigation Updates from Coalition for Free Trade
- Start Up/Start Over - Lessons from the Winery Trenches
- The Down & Dirty on Compliance
- Using Telemarketing for Customer Service and Profit
- Strategies and Tactics to Increase Your Mailing List
- A State by State Shipping Update
- Grow Your Wine Club to 5,000 Members & Beyond
Rhode Island and Alabama: Let My Pinot Go!
March 27th, 2008
As legislative sessions continue to progress across the country, more and more legislative bills concerning direct shipments of wine are being considered. If the bills mentioned in this post pass, two states will change from being prohibited states to permit states. The last state to change from a prohibited state to a permit state was Indiana, and that turned out to be a little messy. The bills for Rhode Island and Alabama are straight forward and fair - let’s hope they make it through the process.
If HB 520 or its companion SB 412 in Alabama, and S 2125 in Rhode Island pass, they would allow for any licensed wine producer, supplier, importer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer to apply for a direct shipper license ($100 initial fee; $50 per year thereafter) that would allow them to ship up to 24 cases of wine per year to an of-age resident of the state, as long as the resident is not located in a dry area. Sales and excise taxes must be paid annually.
Thanks Again to Our Readers
March 26th, 2008
As you might have noticed by the re-emergence of the logo on the sidebar of this page over the last week, we have been nominated as a finalist for the second edition of the American Wine Blog Awards in the category of Best Wine Business Blog. We are very honored by this distinction and we thank everyone that has nominated us. The voting ends this week, so if you have not yet visited the virtual poll, you can cast your vote by clicking here.
We owe the success of this blog to the support of our dedicated readers - your emails, tips, suggestions, and words of encouragement have made it easy to continue to use this forum to provide up to date news, analysis, and editorial on the topic of direct shipping compliance. A big thank you as well to the contributors of this blog, especially Corbin Houchins, Annie Bones, Sarah Werner, and Jeff Carroll.
Thanks again for your support. I’d strongly recommend checking out the finalists in all categories and voting for your favorites by visiting the virtual poll.
An Accident On The Way To Court
March 25th, 2008
The February 26, 2008 decision by an Arizona federal district court in Black Star Farms LLC v. Oliver supports an in-person purchase requirement, one of the principal legislative attacks on the level-field principle enunciated in Granholm.
In-person purchase as a precondition to direct shipment solves a fundamental political problem for the middle tier. Although Granholm allows states to eliminate discrimination against interstate direct shipment by forbidding in-state shipment, pursuing that “level down†strategy requires extravagant expenditure of political capital, because it constitutes a death sentence for a significant fraction of local wineries. Thus, wholesaler trade associations are faced with reconciling survival of direct shipment for local wineries with the core objective of forcing wineries in other states to go through three tiers, a conceptual problem after Granholm.
The solution is the “accident of geography†theory, which contends that the impracticality of, e.g., an Arizona consumer’s visiting a Yakima Valley winery to place an order for a wine advertised on the Internet, compared to the convenience of visiting an Arizona winery for the same purpose, does not discriminate against interstate commerce. The Black Star court, like a New York federal district court in Buy Right, Inc. v. Boyle and a Tennessee federal district court in Jelovsek v. Bresden, appears to have bought the theory; federal district courts in the Kentucky case, Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC v. Hudgins, and the Indiana case, Baud v. Heath, rejected it. Appeals are reportedly under way in the fourth, sixth and seventh federal circuits; if the plaintiffs appeal in Black Star, the ninth circuit will also be involved.
At first impression, the wholesalers’ argument does not seem logical. With respect to governmental restrictions, the Commerce Clause is supposed to provide equal access to markets for interstate commerce originating in any location. True, it does not require states to neutralize natural effects of geography, such as the greater cost of shipping from a distant point, but the trade restriction in question arises from the legislative pen, not from geography itself. For legislation, the Commerce Clause supports location parity by voiding state enactments with substantial discriminatory effects, including the effect of leveraging location advantages of local businesses against distant competitors.
Ironically, the court in Black Star appears to have recognized that aspect of the Commerce Clause, as it cited a 1994 Supreme Court case on the subject, C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, which invalidated a facially neutral city ordinance requiring all nonhazardous solid waste received and processed in the town to be deposited at the defendant township’s transfer station. The fatal flaw of the Clarkstown ordinance was that in practice it favored local waste management business to the exclusion of all non-local competition, which sounds pretty similar to a three-tier requirement for out-of-state businesses, but the Black Star court decided not to follow that precedent for reasons that are difficult to divine in its opinion.
There is, nevertheless, a solid basis for the anti-trade result in Black Star and other recent cases, which is widely (and perhaps erroneously) understood as endorsement of a geographic accident defense to Granholm-based suits. If there were only one message I’d want readers of these blogs and Notes on Wine Distribution to take away from discussion of Granholm, it would be the enormous evidentiary difference between a facial discrimination case like Granholm itself and a de facto discrimination case like Black Star. The latter category, which includes challenges to volume caps as well as to on-site limitations, requires much more extensive preparation, with economic expert testimony, to satisfy the plaintiffs’ substantial burden of proof. The Black Star judge underlines that point in refusing to reach the same result as Hudgins and Baude: “However, Plaintiffs proffer no evidence to suggest that such a limited exception, applicable to both in-state and out-of-state wineries, erects a barrier to Arizona’s wine market that in effect creates a burden that alters the proportional share of the wine market in favor of in-state wineries, such that out-of-state wineries are unable to effectively compete in the Arizona market.†Providing the kind of evidence the court would have to see before invalidating a facially neutral statute adds something like $150,000 on top of all the other costs of the litigation, which should be a sobering, but not surprising, fact for enthusiasts of law reform by litigation, and especially for those who think Granholm provides a lay-down slam in direct shipment cases.
Tennessee Wholesalers - Crossing the Line?
March 24th, 2008
There are a couple of direct shipping bills in the Tennessee legislature that would allow Tennessee consumers to order wine from any winery or retailer in the country, with some of the regular restrictions. This would be a big deal, considering direct shipments into Tennessee have not been allowed from any state in recent history. However, what would normally be a run-of-the-mill direct shipping bill has turned into a subject of controversy over actions taken by Tennessee wholesalers to sway public opinion of the bill.
Wine Spectator Online reports that Tennessee wholesalers have been sending direct-mail and online initiatives to Tennessee residents, saying that SB 1977 and its counterpart, HB 1850 are a threat to Tennessee’s youth and asking them to sign a petition for children to come first. Jackson, one of the authors of the bill, has notified the Tennessee ethics commission of the wholesalers’ intent, saying that this is illegal lobbying because the direct-mail and online initiatives say nothing about being funded by the Tennessee wholesalers. He argues, “[those who view the teen drinking initiatives] think it’s some sort of philanthropic organization that’s concerned about youth consumption of alcohol. But the populous is deprived of the ability to find out who’s really behind this campaign” and that the bill wouldn’t increase availability of wine to minors. Tom Wark of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association issued a press release about Tennessee SB 1977 and has this to say about minors obtaining wine via direct shipping:
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission both looked at the issue and determined that minors are highly unlikely to use direct shipping to obtain wine. No state that allows direct shipping has reported even a small problem with minors accessing wine via direct shipping.
That being said, we should focus on what is really important about this bill: consumer choice. If passed, SB 1977 would allow permitted wine manufacturers, producers, suppliers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers to ship wine directly to Tennessee residents. Permitted shippers could ship no more than 18 liters per year to an of-age Tennessee resident in a “wet” area. The permitted shipper would have to pay a $100 application fee, a $50 annual license fee, and pay sales and excise taxes on all shipments.
Kill the Bill: Maryland and Direct Wine Shipping
March 19th, 2008
Maryland continues to be one of six states in which direct shipping is completely prohibited. In a previous post we reported that HB1260 and SB616 were favorable direct shipping bills in Maryland’s current legislative session. Both of these bills died in committee. If passed, they would have allowed permitted wineries and retailers to ship directly to Maryland residents. Though the bill was widely supported, the Licensed Beverage Distributors of Maryland argued that the bill would “hurt Maryland wineries, reduce distribution-related jobs in the state, hamper tax collection and make it easier for minors to obtain alcohol” (as reported in the Baltimore Sun), “It’s always a tough fight when a majority of people stand up for the common good against entrenched special interests”
Wisconsin Direct Shipping Bill Receives Governor’s Signature
March 14th, 2008
Senate Bill 485 was passed into law yesterday, making Wisconsin the newest addition to the list of permit states. Wisconsin was one of the three remaining states that had yet to change their direct shipping laws since the Granholm ruling. Direct shipping law did not authorize intra-state shipments of wine to consumers, and the reciprocity agreement defined by Wisconsin only allowed California wineries to ship directly to the state’s residents. Now, a winery in any state may ship wine directly to a Wisconsin resident once the winery has received a direct wine shipper permit from Wisconsin.
The new direct wine shippers permit allows licensees (licensed wineries that are located in- and/or out-of-state) to ship wine directly to an of-age and non-intoxicated individual in Wisconsin. The individual may receive no more than 108 liters of wine annually from any combination of licensees. The individual is responsible for compliance with this annual limit. The fee for this permit is no more than $100/year. Sales tax, excise tax and reporting are required quarterly.
This is good news for direct to consumer sales - no capacity caps, no touchy age-validation restrictions… but there’s a catch concerning self-distribution: all sales to retailers must go through a wholesaler.
Legislative Intent… Without the 3-tier system, the effective statewide regulation and collection of state taxes on alcohol beverages sales would be seriously jeopardized. It is further the intent of the legislature that without a specific statutory exception, all sales of alcohol beverages shall occur through the 3-tier system, from manufacturers to licensed wholesalers to retailers to consumers. Face-to-face retail sales at licensed premises directly advance the state’s interest in preventing alcohol sales to underage or intoxicated persons and the state’s interest in efficient and effective collection of tax.
Luckily, there are a couple safeguards for small manufacturers.
“All wholesalers must work diligently to ensure that distribution channels are available for the sale of intoxicating liquor products through wholesalers to retailers in this state.”
The legislation isn’t clear about methods or consequences for wholesalers if they fail to adhere to this clause.
The other safeguard: small wineries (producing under 25,000 gallons of wine in a year) may group together to form a “Cooperative Wholesaler”; this Cooperative must become licensed to act as a regularly-licensed-wholesaler in order to sell to retailers or other regularly-licensed-wholesalers. The maximum number of Cooperatives allowed is six, and they must be created between October 1, 2008 and December 31st, 2008. The Cooperative must have a single location within the state of Wisconsin (a winery can only belong to one Cooperative). If the Cooperative’s members consist of both in- and out-of-state wineries, then the board of directors must also include both in- and out-of-state members. Members may not be employees of the Cooperative, but may volunteer.
The bill passed through the Senate and the House in late February and was approved by Governor Doyle on March 13th. Last year, a similar bill was passed by the House and Senate, but was vetoed by Governor Doyle partly because the bill would have banned self-distribution altogether, and did not “adequately address the needs of small entrepreneurial wineries.” This year’s bill seems to address the aforementioned needs and received backing by the Wisconsin Wine and Spirit Institute. The new law goes into effect on October 1, 2008.
Just Peachy: More Wineries Could Be Eligible for Direct Shipping
March 10th, 2008
A bill is being considered in Georgia that could potentially open up the state to all wineries for direct shipping. The permit system that is in place right now works pretty well for eligible wineries, but the major issue is that some funky language makes it so that wineries cannot ship offsite orders to Georgia residents if the winery is represented by a distributor in Georgia.
3-6-31.(c)(4)No holder of a special order shipping license shall accept any order for any wine that is otherwise registered and designated pursuant to this title or from a person who is licensed under this title;
That little paragraph causes big problems for many wineries. House Bill 1061 would eliminate the distributor restriction, and would introduce a few more minor changes:
- a winery would no longer have to pay a bond, designate sales territories, or name a wholesaler in each territory (a conflicting law);
- brands must still be registered;
- the person placing the order must state affirmatively that he or she is of age before the order can be processed;
- of-age individuals are limited to 12 cases of wine from each licensee per year (up from 5 cases per household); and
- it is explicitly stated that wineries may not ship to licensed premises,that sales and excise taxes must be paid and that a shipper must be a winery.
House Bill 1061 has already been approved by the house and was read and referred to a committee on February 28th by the Senate. All in all it’s not a bad bill: More wineries can ship to Georgia, the law makes more sense, and Georgia gets more money.
WSWA on Wine Shippers: “Flaunting their disdainâ€
March 9th, 2008
Just over a week ago, on the same day that the Specialty Wine Retailers Association held their first annual symposium, the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America issued a press release. This in itself was not remarkable - the WSWA has an active PR effort working to ensure their views are presented to the mainstream media and impact their lobbying efforts. However, this press release requires some attention. WSWA President and CEO Craig Wolf penned a letter that was sent out to regulators in all 50 states, calling on the state alcoholic beverage boards to step up their enforcement of alcohol shipping laws. Below are a few choice excerpts from the letter.
I write to call your attention to a serious and ongoing breach of state alcohol control laws. While the breach is alarming enough, almost as troubling is the brazen disregard the perpetrators continue to show for the rule of law and those appointed to enforce it.
I refer to the illegal transportation of alcohol via common carrier across state lines and into your jurisdiction. These shipments fall outside of the controlled distribution system mandated by state law. As you are well aware, the sidestepping of state-controlled alcohol distribution channels causes a host of negative effects—the inability to collect taxes, the absence of a face-to-face transaction that addresses myriad regulatory aims, and the very real possibility of introducing tainted or counterfeit product into your marketplace, to name but a few.
a growing number of interstate purveyors of beverage alcohol are flaunting their disdain for laws designed to prevent underage access and ensure accountability. They appear both utterly remorseless and resolute in their intention to keep breaking those laws, with little fear of retribution.
I have little doubt that as a respected enforcement agent of your state’s codes and statutes, you will bring your full attention to this rampant problem and help restore the rule of law to a highly sensitive area of commerce. If you have any further questions concerning any of the matters I have raised, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
I was happy to be a part of the first SWRA symposium. Dean Kenneth Starr, the keynote speaker, presented a very positive outlook for wine retailers and their battles on the wine shipping litigation and legislation fronts. Tom Wark, Executive Director of the SWRA, began the day with the news of this press release and issued a call to retailers to join him in rising up to this challenge from the WSWA.
The first step towards success in reaching the goal of gaining access to more states for the direct shipment of wine is to simply demonstrate compliance with the laws of the states. We have been working with wineries for years, helping them comply with all of the laws of the states, so I know that they are up for the challenge. And I know wine retailers are up for this challenge as well, because I heard it at the symposium and could see that they are coming together effectively, through the hard work of the SWRA, to fight this battle as a group.
Wine Distribution Notes - Release 26
March 6th, 2008
Release 26 of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing.
These notes are a great resource for keeping up to date with developing trends in direct shipping and direct distribution. As always, you can find the most recent version of these notes at the ShipCompliant Blog by clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right hand side of the page.
Each new release shows green highlighting on sections with changes from the preceding release. Release 26 highlights changes from the last two releases: highlights from release 25 include updates to Alaska, Maryland, New Mexico and Tennessee. Highlights from release 26 include updates to Florida, Indiana, and others. Read the notes to find out what else is new.
Another Rowe to Hoe
February 25th, 2008
There’s been a lot of silliness lately about the Maine cigarette case, with some observers declaring that the recent Supreme Court opinion in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n prevents states from regulating carrier deliveries of interstate wine shipments. Whether honest mistake or disinformation, that assertion might seem plausible from a superficial reading of news reports on the decision, so it’s worth looking into.
This Rowe is a straightforward federal preemption case, affirming a Court of Appeals decision (itself based on a well-known 1992 Supreme Court decision) that a federal statute with a specific preemption clause does just what it says. Enacted in 1994, the motor carrier statute provides: “[A] State . . . may not enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property.” The Maine law struck down as inconsistent with the federal statute attempted to prevent shippers from using interstate motor carriers lacking controls to prevent delivering cigarettes to minors, an objective the justices found worthy, but within the exclusive province of the federal congress.
Why doesn’t that knock out state laws restricting delivery of wine to minors? In the first place, there is a more specific federal statute dealing with alcoholic beverages, which provides: “The shipment or transportation … of any … intoxicating liquor … from one State … into any other State … intended … to be received … in violation of any law of such State … is prohibited.†In other words, federal law specifically authorizes state laws regulating deliveries of wine and adds federal weight to their enforcement. One cannot argue that the liquor statute, passed in 1935, is impliedly repealed by the 1994 motor freight legislation, because they do not exhibit the kind of irreconcilable conflict that evinces congressional intent to repeal the older statute. Well-settled principles of statutory construction in cases of conflict prohibit implied repeal if reconciliation is possible and provide that facially conflicting statutes can be reconciled by allowing the more specific to govern over the general in its particular subject area. Thus, if we had only the two statutes to consider, rules of statutory construction would require that the 1935 act remain in force as a subject matter exception to the more general 1994 enactment. One could quibble about the extent to which states are authorized to dispense with an intent requirement, but there’s no doubt that the federal statutory scheme leaves room for state laws controlling wine deliveries.
It is not, however, merely a matter of two statutes. The second problem with the Chicken Little reading of Rowe is a clincher. The U.S. Constitution states, “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.†There is no need to resort to implied congressional intent. The Supremacy Clause says that the U.S. Constitution itself and the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, a provision that is interpreted to mean, “in that order.†Thus, the same clause that underlies preemption of the Maine cigarette delivery law by a federal statute absolutely prevents preemption of a state wine delivery law by that congressional enactment, provided the state law does not violate some other constitutional provision, e.g., by discriminating against wine produced by persons of a certain race or religion –or by a winery outside the state.
Three New Florida Bills: Not the Ducks or the Bucks, but the Winery Shipper Ones
February 24th, 2008
The Regular session of the Florida Legislature will convene on March 4, 2008. During the 60 days following, legislators should decide on one of three winery shipping bills that could be introduced into Florida law. I say should, hoping that last year’s unsuccessful passage will not be repeated. Since 2006, wineries have been able to send relatively unrestricted shipments to Florida consumers. Back in 2006, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) decided to become compliant with Granholm; because of this they have allowed shipments, hoping legislation would be passed. In 2007, many thought they might take this allowance away after all three bills failed to pass into law.
The 2008 winery shipping legislation contestants have several things in common. The bills would require a $1000 - $5000 bond, a $250 permit (the annual application and registration fee for Florida Farm wineries is $100), varied annual shipment quantity limitations per household, reporting and payment of sales and excise taxes, and applicants must produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine annually.
HB 693 (Bogdanoff) - In 2007, the only bill that did not have a capacity cap was authored by Bogdanoff. Unfortunately, this year the cap is set to 250,000 gallons just like the other two bills. Other restrictions that stand out: Fingerprinting of applicants; consumers may not purchase more than 18 cases of wine per household; Age verification (receiving a copy, electronic or otherwise, of a purchaser’s driver’s license; or asking for and recording all purchasers’ names, ages, and dates of birth); if the applicant is owned by a winery that sells more than 250,000 gallons of wine, the division may not issue a license.
SB 1736 (Geller) - Geller was also an author of a competing 2007 bill. The 2008 version looks pretty much the same: The applicant must produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine annually; brand registration is required for all wine shipped; the Winery Shipper must require the person to state that he or she is 21 years of age or older, ship no more than 15 cases per household per year; the Winery Shipper shall offer the brands of wine shipped under this section to license distributors; knowingly and intentionally shipping wine to a person under 21 is a 3rd degree felony.
Of the three bills in 2008, it seems SB 1096 (Margolis) is the one wine lovers and makers will be rooting for the least. Without focusing too much on the regular restrictions, let’s just note the more shocking ones:
Legislative intent
“The Legislature finds that the importation, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages require strict regulation in order to promote temperance by discouraging consumption by underage persons… fiscal health of the state… these purposes are best achieved through the state’s comprehensive system of licensing and regulation, including the three-tier system of alcohol distribution which has been the law of this state since the repeal of Prohibition.”
– Confusing distributor language: “The division may not issue or renew a license under this section if the applicant or licensee has appointed a distributor in this state, unless the applicant provides to the division a copy of a written notice sent to the distributor of intent to obtain a winery shipper’s license 1 year before applying for a winery shipper’s license under this section” (if passed, this would go into effect 4 months from now making it hard to give 1 year notice before the license becomes available.) However, it is later stated that “A licensed winery shipper must offer to its distributor for purchase and sale per calendar year the same brands and quantities of wine shipped per calendar year under this section”
– Licensees may not ship more than 4 cases per year per household. In addition to the licensee restriction, consumers may not purchase more than 4 cases per household per year. For common carriers, the signature form must inform the recipient that the wine is for personal or household consumption only, and not for resale. Wineries must have a written contract with the common carrier saying that the common carrier will do this.
– Knowingly and intentionally shipping wine to a person under 21 is a 3rd degree felony.
Since 2006, wineries and wine lovers have enjoyed relative freedom when shipping wine directly to Florida consumers. Florida is ranked #2 in table wine consumption, which accounts for a big chunk of addressable market share of direct shipments. If any of these bills pass as is, it might feel like you’re living with your parents again; you can go to the party, but you can’t stay out past 8:00. Maybe if we keep putting the pressure on the lawmakers, we’ll at least be able to stay out past midnight.
Costco Asks Court of Appeals to Think Again
February 21st, 2008
On February 19, 2008, Costco Wholesale filed a petition for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the original panel to reconsider a three-judge panel’s decision of January 29th, which upheld the ruling of a federal district court in Seattle that Washington’s price posting requirement is invalid under federal antitrust law, but reinstated other parts of the price posting statute the district court had struck down as part of the invalid statutory scheme, as well as the ban on central warehousing. The petition also asks that the entire appeals court hear the case if the original panel does not grant Costco’s request, in view of the importance of the antitrust issues, the inconsistency of the result with those in an earlier Ninth Circuit case and a recent Fourth Circuit case, and the necessity to interpret a leading Supreme Court opinion. The petition offers a clue to how an appeal to the Supreme Court might be structured.
