Lawsuit filed in Tennessee
October 22nd, 2006
Add Tennessee to the list of at least nine states that have ongoing direct to consumer litigation. A “wine enthusiast” recently filed a lawsuit in Tennessee to challenge the laws prohibiting the direct shipment of wine to consumers. Tennessee currently is a felony state that allows for a one gallon federal onsite provision, but otherwise forces wineries to use the three tier system to get wine to consumers.
12 Responses to “Lawsuit filed in Tennessee”
November 24th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
There are many of us that would like to join this lawsuit or in some way support it. These laws are ridiculous. Wine is a legal commodity and should be available for purchase with the same freedom as any other catalogue or internet purchase. How can we participate?
December 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
The current law amounts to a state blessed monopoly and runs afoul of free trade and
commerce. Anyone of legal age should be able to purchase wine from any winery that does
business in the U.S. (including imported wine if imported properly). I only wish there was a
legislator with the courage to correct this wrong.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:34 am
There is nothing illegal about selling, possessing, or transporting wine in this state. There is nothing illegal about a wine retailer receiving massive shipments of wine. There is nothing illegal about me leaving the state with a bottle of wine. There was nothing illegal about my parents sending me a gift of wine for the New Year when they lived in Tennessee. And now, just because they live in California, it shouldn’t be illegal to receive a gift from my parents. Hey Tennessee, your legislature is screwing up my family tradition.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I recently moved to TN from the Northwest and just found out that it’s a felony for me to visit my favorite winery in Oregon, purchase a case and then send it back to myself here in TN. Why should that be crime, let alone a FELONY? I hope the lawsuit is successful.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Check the State legislature website. HB 1850 has passed and is on its way to the State & Local committee for next week. This bill will you to buy wine from in or out of state wineries up to 2 cases per year from each winery.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/billLookup.asp
Enter HB1850 on the above search page, it has been deferred to 2008. Everyone on the Hill is afraid of the top lobbyist, Tom Hensley, and his money. Looks like he got this stopped as well. It will take a lot of cash to blunt Hensley’s advantage up there.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“The Problem”
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070402/NEWS0201/704020387
September 12th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Anything new happen with this?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
This is utterly ridiculous. We’ll allow free trade agreements to be written with Mexico and Canada, but we can’t get a bottle of wine shipped from one state to another without the State coming down on our heads?! Come on, Tennessee lawmakers… time to bring the state out of the e-commerce dark ages.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Any news, or concerted efforts to express support for this effort?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I, too, am amazed that the state of Tennessee does not allow wine to be shipped from wineries located in other states. I would like to know who to contact in regards to helping change this law. I just looked up the information on the website listed above and it stated that the bill was defeated on February 6, 2008. Is there a way to revive this issue or is it dead in the water??? How long does it take to bring another bill to the attention of the legislature? I am willing to help in any way. This is just ridiculous….we can order weapons, drugs and harmful chemicals and have them delivered to our front door, but we can’t order a case of wine from wineries we have visited out of state???????
February 27th, 2008 at 1:54 am
I think I misinterpreted the “Def.” in the Bill History Section….instead of the bill being “defeated”, I am thinking that on February 2, 2008, it was “deferred” to be brought up for action on March 5, 2008. Is that correct??? Sorry for the confusion in the earlier inquery. I am hopeful this bill is still “alive” and there is still hope for its passage.
