Comments on: Is the retail to consumer shipping battle headed to the Supreme Court? http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/15/is-the-retail-to-consumer-shipping-battle-headed-to-the-supreme-court/ Untangling the complex world of wine direct shipping and compliance Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:12:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Tom Wark http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/15/is-the-retail-to-consumer-shipping-battle-headed-to-the-supreme-court/#comment-25025 Tom Wark Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:26:01 +0000 http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/15/is-the-retail-to-consumer-shipping-battle-headed-to-the-supreme-court/#comment-25025 Brent, Corbin, Jeff and Mr. Amar are all correct in their assessment of the Retailer to consumer shipping issue. The Judiciary will also come to this conclusion eventually. The notion that the principles in Granholm only apply to producers is no where stated in Granholm. This is probably why the judge in the Arnold case didn't cite any reference to Granholm when he made that claim. He couldn't. Without speculating on the cause for the recent NY decision, it's enough to say that it will be nice to have an appellate court overturning the judge's reasoning. This kind of appellate decision will go a long way. What should be remembered, however, is that there are politics involved in this issue that speak directly to self interest. That's always the way it is. Retailers are quite clear that their interest in opening up shipping derives from their desire to serve a consumer market. Consumers clear interest in seeing free trade derives from their own self interest: they want to drink good wine. Then there are wholesalers. They don't touch the consumers. It should be no surprise that their positions are entirely anti-consumer...in every respect. Nice post! Brent, Corbin, Jeff and Mr. Amar are all correct in their assessment of the Retailer to consumer shipping issue. The Judiciary will also come to this conclusion eventually. The notion that the principles in Granholm only apply to producers is no where stated in Granholm. This is probably why the judge in the Arnold case didn’t cite any reference to Granholm when he made that claim. He couldn’t.

Without speculating on the cause for the recent NY decision, it’s enough to say that it will be nice to have an appellate court overturning the judge’s reasoning. This kind of appellate decision will go a long way.

What should be remembered, however, is that there are politics involved in this issue that speak directly to self interest. That’s always the way it is. Retailers are quite clear that their interest in opening up shipping derives from their desire to serve a consumer market. Consumers clear interest in seeing free trade derives from their own self interest: they want to drink good wine. Then there are wholesalers. They don’t touch the consumers. It should be no surprise that their positions are entirely anti-consumer…in every respect.

Nice post!

]]> By: Brent Stiffler http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/15/is-the-retail-to-consumer-shipping-battle-headed-to-the-supreme-court/#comment-24991 Brent Stiffler Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:26:38 +0000 http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/15/is-the-retail-to-consumer-shipping-battle-headed-to-the-supreme-court/#comment-24991 With all the supposed wisdom of the 2005 Supreme Court ruling I find it hard to believe that the Court's intent was to punish e-tailers and other distribution methods for the wineries. By not allowing these winery distribution outlets the ability to ship to all legally appropriate states is to actually hurt the consumer (the intended beneficiary). The wineries depend on these alternate forms of distribution to fulfill their customer needs. To not include e-tailers is to hurt the wineries which in turn limits the choices for consumers. Regretably we live within a system where wholesalers are doing their best to keep the competition out..... and in too many cases succeeding. The best thing the Court could do is to set the rules fairly for all parties recognizing that we are no longer in the days of prohibition. With all the supposed wisdom of the 2005 Supreme Court ruling I find it hard to believe that the Court’s intent was to punish e-tailers and other distribution methods for the wineries. By not allowing these winery distribution outlets the ability to ship to all legally appropriate states is to actually hurt the consumer (the intended beneficiary). The wineries depend on these alternate forms of distribution to fulfill their customer needs. To not include e-tailers is to hurt the wineries which in turn limits the choices for consumers. Regretably we live within a system where wholesalers are doing their best to keep the competition out….. and in too many cases succeeding. The best thing the Court could do is to set the rules fairly for all parties recognizing that we are no longer in the days of prohibition.

]]>