Like sausage, the bill that started in Virginia was quite different from what passed. Most importantly, the new law allows wine shipments into Virginia from out-of-state shipper licensee through an “approved fulfillment warehouse.” The ABC is charged with developing regulations governing such approval. They will require the fulfillment warehouse to: 1) show ABC its home state license; 2) to maintain/give records that the ABC will describe; and (3) demonstrate it has a contract with a wine shipper licensee designating that fulfillment warehouse as its agent. Wine Institute will actively participate in the creation of these regulations, but it is unlikely they will be finalized before July of 2011.

The new law also creates a Virginia fulfillment warehouse license, as well as a Virginia “marketing portal” license. These two new licenses are available only to agricultural cooperatives (non-profit associations recognized by the Virginia Agricultural Cooperative Act of 5 or more growers within Virginia) operating under the direction and control of a Virginia wine shipper licensee. On behalf of wine shipper licensees, the fulfillment and marketing portal licensees can pack and ship wine for wineries/retailers, or solicit and receive orders for wine through an Internet site.

Virginia continues to permit wineries licensed as Virginia direct wine shippers to offer their wines to Virginians via their web sites. It also continues to allow retailers licensed as Virginia direct shippers to market their own inventory on a web site. However, the new law prohibits any marketing on web sites of wine not owned/possessed by the web site owner, unless done by a Virginia agricultural cooperative licensed as a marketing portal.

Unfortunately, the new law (resulting from HB 279, HB 630, SB 483 and SB 590) also raises the annual license tax for Virginia wine shipper licensees from $65 to $95. It will take effect on July 1, 2010, at which time Virginia ABC will begin to draft the regulations.

-Terri Cofer Beirne, Eastern Counsel, Wine Institute

The decision is another example of uncertainties resulting from the principal unresolved Granholm question: How does one reconcile the location-neutrality principle with the infamous North Dakota dictum to the effect that states may discriminate against out-of-state wholesalers? The Fifth Circuit’s answer, like that of the Second Circuit, is that Granholm extended Commerce Clause protection to wineries, but not to wholesalers or retailers, because national markets in the lower tiers would make it impossible for a state to protect the “traditional three-tier system.” As the Court of Appeals judge said about setting aside fundamental economic policy embodied in the dormant Commerce Clause to follow a judicial aside that was not part of the Granholm holding, “That language may be dicta. If so, it is compelling dicta.”

Post-Granholm litigation shows clearly enough that judges, though not bound to follow dicta, will elevate it to persuasive precedent when it coincides with their value systems. The values question is whether states’ asserted 21st Amendment right to maintain a privileged middle tier trumps the Commerce Clause policy against differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. All one can say at this point is, “to be continued.”

by R. Corbin Houchins, CorbinCounsel.com

The decision is another example of uncertainties resulting from the principal unresolved Granholm question: How does one reconcile the location-neutrality principle with the infamous North Dakota dictum to the effect that states may discriminate against out-of-state wholesalers? The Fifth Circuit’s answer, like that of the Second Circuit, is that Granholm extended Commerce Clause protection to wineries, but not to wholesalers or retailers, because national markets in the lower tiers would make it impossible for a state to protect the “traditional three-tier system.” As the Court of Appeals judge said about setting aside fundamental economic policy embodied in the dormant Commerce Clause to follow a judicial aside that was not part of the Granholm holding, “That language may be dicta. If so, it is compelling dicta.”

Post-Granholm litigation shows clearly enough that judges, though not bound to follow dicta, will elevate it to persuasive precedent when it coincides with their value systems. The values question is whether states’ asserted 21st Amendment right to maintain a privileged middle tier trumps the Commerce Clause policy against differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. All one can say at this point is, “to be continued.”

by R. Corbin Houchins, CorbinCounsel.com

However, the VA ABC offered two interim solutions for Wine Institute members until the law can be changed. Nothing in Virginia law currently prevents direct shipper licensees from obtaining two (2) direct shipper licenses with two different addresses, even though a second location is not owned or controlled by the licensee. Therefore, if a winery sends wine from BOTH their tasting room and a fulfillment warehouse, it can keep a current direct shipper license intact and secure a second one with the address of their fulfillment facility, from where wine can also be shipped. The Virginia direct shipper license application fee is $65 and the annual license fee is $65. Separate tax payments and reports associated with each licenses would have to be filed.

Additionally, if the winery sends ALL wine shipments into Virginia from a pick and pack warehouse with NO shipments originating in their tasting room, the winery’s Virginia direct shippers license could be changed to list the address of the warehouse from which ALL wine will be shipped. Wineries may make such an amendment to a current license by sending a letter on winery letterhead explaining the reason for the change and including the old and new addresses to Dallas “Burnie” Gaskill, VA ABC Licensing Technician at P.O. Box 1597, Spotsylvania, VA 22553-1597. Burnie can be reached by phone at (540) 538-7838 or e-mail at dallas.gaskill@abc.virginia.gov with questions. Such letter MUST include a copy of the state license issued to the warehouse making shipments on the winery’s behalf. The letter must also contain an e-mail address for the winery, where the amended license will be sent in an electronic format.

Members can contact Annie Bones at abones@wineinstitute.org or at (415) 356-7530 with additional questions. Terri would also be pleased to talk more about this situation and can be reached at (804) 301-5505 or tbeirne@wineinstitute.org.

-Terri Cofer Beirne, Eastern Counsel, Wine Institute

Form MT-38 Annual Filing Status Application
Form MT-40 (Monthly filing)

-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute

Although retailers will not be among those celebrating on July 1, the passage of SB 166 is a huge victory for many direct shippers. Governor Bredesen’s signature signals a radical change in the state’s stance on wine sold through the direct shipping channel: Tennessee is the first state to reverse its stance on direct shipments for wine since Vermont in 2006. The effective date of this legislation is less than a month away, however, there is no word, yet, on when all necessary forms will be available, so stay tuned.

During the Senate Committee hearings, there was lengthy questioning regarding enforcement mechanisms to ensure out-of-state wineries are in compliance. Senator Tim Burchett also voiced concerns about the lack of jurisdiction that the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission has over out-of-state wineries, to which committee chair Senator Bill Ketron responded with a quote from Section 1.C.2 of the bill, which states that applicants must, “execute a consent to jurisdiction and venue of all actions… in the state of Tennessee.” Senator Ketron also noted other enforcement mechanisms such as a clause that makes direct shipping without a permit a Class (E) Felony. Primary Sponsor Senator Stanley addressed the doubts about enforcement and compliance by pointing to many other states that have successfully instituted and enforced direct shipping laws. In addition to mentioning the success of other direct-shipping states, bill supporters also noted that SB166 could bring in an estimated $10 million in additional annual revenue.

The approved version of the bill was passed in the Senate by a 22-8 margin with two amendments, imposed by the Senate Finance, Ways and Means committee. The first amendment reduced the total annual wine shipments allowed to one resident to 27-Liters from the original 108 Liters per year, with a one case per month limit. The second amendment was apparently inserted with no specific purpose except to appease the three-tier distribution system by stating that nothing in the direct shipping bill is meant to “diminish the three-tiered scheme.” The Senate-approved version of SB 166 also requires wineries to report the appropriate sales and gallonage taxes, and direct shippers must keep records of all shipments in case the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission requests such information. Now that the bill has moved through the Senate, it awaits discussion and approval by the House Government Operations Committee.

In February, Tennessee’s Attorney General chose to level-down by banning all direct-to-consumer shipments and transports of wine for personal use. Only two months later, however, the passage of SB 166 in the Senate demonstrates willingness to accommodate consumer demand by opening up the state to direct shipping.

In other news North Dakota will no longer have a separate tax category for sparkling wine. Beginning July 1, 2009 sparkling wine will be taxed at $0.50 per gallon, the same rate as table wine. This is a significant decrease from the current excise tax of $1.00 per gallon of sparkling wine.

-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute

As we mentioned in a previous post, House Bill 1061 had passed in the House and has since passed in the Senate. It made its way onto the Governor’s table on April 15th, and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed it into law yesterday. The long-awaited bill amends Code Sections 3-6-31 and 3-6-20, a source of problems for many wineries. Before the bill passed, Georgia’s direct shipping laws were very restrictive, only allowing direct shipment by wineries without a distributor relationship in Georgia and by all wineries for onsite purchases. Onsite shipments were limited to five cases per consumer or per household.

However, the passage of the bill effected many favorable changes to Georgia’s direct shipment law. The statutory amendments eliminate the problematic provision which prohibited wineries from shipping offsite orders to Georgia residents if the wineries were represented by a distributor in Georgia. This significantly opens up the state to both in- and out-of-state wineries that were not previously permitted to ship offsite sales directly to consumers.

Furthermore, the amendments added a definition of “winery” to the statute, defining it as “any maker or producer of wine whether in this state or in any other state, who holds a valid federal basic wine manufacturing permit.” (Section 3-6-31(a)).

Another noteworthy change is the addition of the age verification requirement found in Section 3-6-20(d)(4):

“Before accepting an order from a consumer in this state, the holder of a special order shipping license shall require that the person placing the order state affirmatively that he or she is of the age required by Code Section 3-3-23 and shall verify the age of such person placing the order either by the physical examination of an approved government issued form of identification or by utilizing an Internet based age and identification service;”

The new age verification requirement strengthens the affirmative statement of age provision (as was required prior to the amendments), working to assuage the fears of those who believe direct shipping creates an unreasonable risk of online ordering by underage individuals.

The bill also introduces a few minor changes. A winery no longer has to post a bond, designate sales territories, or name a wholesaler in each territory (thereby taking a conflicting law off the books). Wineries are also prohibited from shipping to licensed premises and are required pay excise taxes and state and local sales taxes from every sale shipped to a consumer in Georgia. In addition, of-age individuals can now purchase up to 12 cases of wine from each licensee per year (up from 5 cases per household pre-HB 1061).

Overall, although wineries must still obtain a special order shipping license and brands must still be registered in order to ship into the state, HB 1061 is going to live up to expectations and prove itself a valuable step for proponents of direct shipping. More wineries can now direct ship to Georgia and reach more consumers, benefiting both Georgians and non-Georgians alike.

The bill takes effect July 1st, 2008. Stay tuned for more details and permit requirements.

As we mentioned in a previous post, House Bill 1061 had passed in the House and has since passed in the Senate. It made its way onto the Governor’s table on April 15th, and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed it into law yesterday. The long-awaited bill amends Code Sections 3-6-31 and 3-6-20, a source of problems for many wineries. Before the bill passed, Georgia’s direct shipping laws were very restrictive, only allowing direct shipment by wineries without a distributor relationship in Georgia and by all wineries for onsite purchases. Onsite shipments were limited to five cases per consumer or per household.

However, the passage of the bill effected many favorable changes to Georgia’s direct shipment law. The statutory amendments eliminate the problematic provision which prohibited wineries from shipping offsite orders to Georgia residents if the wineries were represented by a distributor in Georgia. This significantly opens up the state to both in- and out-of-state wineries that were not previously permitted to ship offsite sales directly to consumers.

Furthermore, the amendments added a definition of “winery” to the statute, defining it as “any maker or producer of wine whether in this state or in any other state, who holds a valid federal basic wine manufacturing permit.” (Section 3-6-31(a)).

Another noteworthy change is the addition of the age verification requirement found in Section 3-6-20(d)(4):

“Before accepting an order from a consumer in this state, the holder of a special order shipping license shall require that the person placing the order state affirmatively that he or she is of the age required by Code Section 3-3-23 and shall verify the age of such person placing the order either by the physical examination of an approved government issued form of identification or by utilizing an Internet based age and identification service;”

The new age verification requirement strengthens the affirmative statement of age provision (as was required prior to the amendments), working to assuage the fears of those who believe direct shipping creates an unreasonable risk of online ordering by underage individuals.

The bill also introduces a few minor changes. A winery no longer has to post a bond, designate sales territories, or name a wholesaler in each territory (thereby taking a conflicting law off the books). Wineries are also prohibited from shipping to licensed premises and are required pay excise taxes and state and local sales taxes from every sale shipped to a consumer in Georgia. In addition, of-age individuals can now purchase up to 12 cases of wine from each licensee per year (up from 5 cases per household pre-HB 1061).

Overall, although wineries must still obtain a special order shipping license and brands must still be registered in order to ship into the state, HB 1061 is going to live up to expectations and prove itself a valuable step for proponents of direct shipping. More wineries can now direct ship to Georgia and reach more consumers, benefiting both Georgians and non-Georgians alike.

The bill takes effect July 1st, 2008. Stay tuned for more details and permit requirements.