Posts from the Illinois Category
Possible Effects of Recent Congressional Hearing on Direct Shipping
April 6th, 2010
You may have seen reports about a recent U.S. Congressional subcommittee hearing on “Legal Issues Concerning State Alcohol Regulation.” The hearing was important for anyone concerned about direct-to-consumer wine shipping since a primary question was whether federal courts should be stripped of their authority to strike down state alcohol laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses—the very issue at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision in Granholm v. Heald.
Click image to view video (RealPlayer required)
The hearing followed a reportedly aggressive lobbying campaign by the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA). The common speculation is that NBWA is concerned that large retailers and global brewers are trying to put beer wholesalers out of business, and that litigation over self-distribution—Costco v. Hoen and a recent lawsuit in Illinois over whether Anheuser-Busch can obtain a wholesaler permit—is a particular threat to their state monopoly pricing power. The undertone of the NBWA effort is that the industry needs to return to a simpler time when the 21st Amendment meant what the wholesale tier thought it did, before the Supreme Court had a chance to weigh in and reset the balance.
While the wine industry has not always benefitted from court decisions, the federal circuits and the Supreme Court have for more than 40 years consistently sought to weigh the interests of states and the market carefully when examining state alcohol laws. Under this court precedent, states have broad authority under their police powers—their ability to protect the public—and the 21st Amendment to regulate the movement and sale of alcohol beverages. But they cannot use state power to discriminate against interstate commerce or to protect in-state monopoly behavior. Despite NBWA’s apparent beliefs to the contrary, there is no evidence that courts have abused their power of judicial review in any way that would justify the blunt reconfiguration of the relationship between federal and state law.
Not that all the state regulators who testified at the hearing would agree. The chairman of Michigan’s Liquor Control Commission offered completely unsubstantiated testimony that because of litigation, direct shipping is a free for all, allowing out-of-state wineries to deliver wine into Michigan on the “honor system,” and resulting in the loss of millions in uncollected tax revenue. This position is questionable since in the wake of Granholm states have more aggressively regulated shipping and have established comprehensive systems of licensing and compliance.
Apart from the fact that state licensing systems make it easier for states to determine whether alcohol is contraband—wine can only be shipped by licensees—Michigan has at least two substantial hammers to ensure their state direct shipping laws are followed. The 21st Amendment Enforcement Act allows states to file for federal injunctions against out-of-state businesses that ignore their laws, and Alcohol Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) policy provides TTB authority to punish federal basic permittees, such as wineries, that violate state law.
Whether the subcommittee hearing will lead to legislation is anyone’s guess. But should a new federal law along the lines sought by NBWA come to fruition, the impact could be substantial for winery direct-to-consumer shipping. States would be free to rewrite their laws to discriminate against out-of-state wineries and subsidize local monopoly behavior. Such a federal law would be an open invitation to roll back the gains wineries have spent nearly two decades fighting to achieve.
Hidden Costs of Direct Shipping Licensing
March 3rd, 2010
Before jumping into a direct shipping program in a new state, wineries should consider their current prospect list, market potential, shipping difficulty and costs. When it comes to calculating start-up costs to enter a new state, there is often more than meets the eye. In addition to license fees, wineries may need to budget for a number of “hidden” fees including bonds, label registration fees and other application fees.
Bonds
Some states require wineries to obtain a bond in order to secure a direct shipping license. A bond is a written guaranty, purchased from a bonding company (usually an insurance firm or a surety company), to guarantee that all taxes due will be paid to the state. If there is a failure to pay, the bonding company will make good up to the amount of the bond.
Bonds for direct shippers range from $500-$1500 depending on the state, but premiums, or out-of-pocket costs, to wineries typically average around 10% of the total bond price, or $50-$180 out-of-pocket on an annual or biannual basis. Different bonding agents may quote different rates, so it pays to shop around.
Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and Wisconsin all require that wineries secure a bond before submitting your license application. For wineries that ship 40,000 gallons or more annually, Oregon issues a bond document after the license application has been received but before the license is issued. Wineries that ship less than 40,000 gallons to Oregon annually can apply for a bond wavier.
Label Registration
Several states require brand or label registrations for direct shipping. Ohio, a state that 26% of direct shippers have in their program, requires wineries to register all the labels that will be shipped into the state for a one-time registration fee of $50 per label.
If that sounds pricey to you, consider Connecticut who charges $200 per label and requires labels to be re-registered every 3 years if they are still actively shipped into the state.
Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Virginia do not charge a fee though label or brand registration is required in these states.
Application Fees
Some states may require business, Secretary of State or tax registration, or other one-time application fees. This varies from state to state and depends on how your business is structured. Wineries that start shipping to Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia or Wisconsin may encounter one or more of these fees.
License, bond, label registration and application fees all factor into the true break-even costs of shipping to a new state. The key to ensuring a profitable direct shipping program is to research thoroughly in order to avoid getting caught off-guard with unexpected costs.
Excise Taxes Rise in Two Direct Shipping States
August 14th, 2009
On September 1, 2009, excise tax rates for wine will increase in Illinois and North Carolina.
Governor Pat Quinn approved Illinois House Bill 255 on July 13, 2009. The bill increases Illinois’ excise tax on wines from $0.73 to $1.39 per gallon of wine under 20% ABV. An updated tax form for Direct Wine Shippers to report sales made on or after September 1, 2009, is already available on Illinois’ website.
Excise tax increases on alcohol were included in North Carolina’s budget bill this August. Starting September 1, North Carolina’s excise tax rates on wine will increase from $0.21 to $0.2634 per liter for wines 16% ABV and under; and from $0.24 to $0.2934 per liter for wines 16% and 24% ABV. The B-C-786 is used by licensed wine shippers use to report sales of wine and report taxes. Thie new report is not yet available online, but check North Carolina’s website on September 16 for the updated form.
As part of both states’ tax legislation, malt beverages and distilled spirits taxes will also increase next month.
Illinois Offers a Bit of Green for Direct Wine Shippers
July 2nd, 2008
For those of you that have started shipping to Illinois under their new permit system, your first round of reporting will come due this month. Fortunately, Illinois makes it easy to report your shipments and pay taxes. Electronic filing and payment is available for the Liquor Direct Wine Shipper Return (RL-26-W), and the Sales and Use Tax Return (ST-1). As we discussed in an earlier post, electronic filing is better for the environment, and it saves you printing and mailing costs; that’s two shades of green!
Before you begin the process for Illinois electronic filing, you will need your Illinois Business Tax number (IBT), your PIN, your payment information, and you will of course need to know how much tax you owe. You should have received your PIN when you registered with the Illinois Department of Revenue. If you have not received your PIN, or do not know what it is, you can contact the Department of Revenue at 217-782-6045, and they will provide you with your PIN.
To start electronic filing for the ST-1, click here, and then click “start filing.” To begin electronic filing for the RL-26-W, click here, then click, “Start Using Webfile.” You can save progress and view submitted reports up to a year after submission.
10 Days Left Until Illinois Permit Deadline
May 22nd, 2008
Just a friendly reminder that beginning June 1st, 2008, Illinois will require a permit for all direct-to-consumer wine shipments to the state. A winery must receive the permit before it may begin/resume shipment to the state. In 10 days, under the newly-promulgated wine shipping law, wineries and retailers that have been shipping to Illinois under a reciprocal agreement will no longer be able to ship to the state without a permit. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission has not given any indication of a grace period for shipping while applications are in process.
For expedient processing, an applicant should submit a copy of its state liquor license along with the Out-of-State Winery Shipper’s License application. An applicant must also submit the brand registration form (for brands not already registered with the state) prior to, or simultaneously to the submission of the application. In addition, a winery must register for sales and excise tax. An accelerated tax permit approval process is available for those wineries which have a distributor in state. In any event, and with time running out, electronic submissions will be approved faster than those send via conventional mail. See our previous post for more detailed instructions and a checklist for the application process with links to forms.
Also, as a reminder, Georgia will open up on July 1st, and Wisconsin will begin their new permit system on October 1st. We’ll have the full details of the application process in both states as they become available.
Checklist and detailed instructions for Illinois permit applicants
May 14th, 2008
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. Illinois Direct-to-Consumer Permit applications are now available on the Wine Institute website.
Application for State of Illinois Winery Shipper’s License – Direct-to-Consumer Application
California wineries should select option F, “OUT-OF-STATE WINERY SHIPPER’S LICENSE” as type of license being applied for.
The application process separates wineries into 3 classes based on the total number of gallons manufactured annually. The cost of the annual 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) must be submitted with the license application.
The license must be renewed annually.
Registration Statement (For Brand Registration)
Brands not already registered with the Commission must be registered prior to, or simultaneously with, the direct shipper application filing. The brand registration requirements are fulfilled by submitting the Registration Form and copies of all federal label approvals for products being shipped into Illinois.
- In the first column titled Name, Address, City etc., write “N/A” If sales are only made to consumers.
- In the second column titled Trade-Mark Brand, or Name of Item, list brands not already registered with the Illinois Liquor Control Commission.
- In the third column titled Geographical Territory, write “Illinois”.
- In the fourth column titled Time Period, write “Until further notice”.
Note: If brands are already registered, you do not need to complete this form.
Self -Distribution
Class 1 wineries who will not produce more than 25,000 gallons annually may apply for self-distribution privileges by completing the “Self-Distribution Exemption” form. Wineries qualifying for the self-distribution exemption may not sell more than 5,000 gallons to retail licensees in Illinois each year. Wineries producing more than 25,000 gallons annually, including all Class 2 and 3 wineries are not eligible to self-distribute in Illinois.
Bond
Applicants must obtain a bond for the amount of $1000 or 2x their estimated monthly tax liability, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of $100,000. (See RL-26-W, Step 2: “Figure your tax due” for alcohol content breakdown with corresponding excise tax rates to estimate monthly tax liability.) Form RL-1, Liquor Tax Statement of Liability must be submitted with the bond paperwork. In addition you will need to submit one of the following:
- Form REG-4-A “Financial Responsibility Bond”
- Form REG -4-D “Financial Institution Irrevocable Letter of Credit Bond”. or
- a cashiers check to cover the cost of a Certificate of Deposit that the Illinois Department of Revenue will purchase for you.
Applications to Register to Pay Sales and Excise Taxes
Illinois requires applicants to register their business with the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR). You do not need a separate application to register to pay the Liquor Tax. IDOR will automatically register you to pay this excise tax using the application you submitted to receive your wine shipper license. The license certificate you receive from the Illinois Liquor Control Commission will contain your liquor license number as well as an Illinois Business Tax Number (IBT). This IBT must be used to file and pay liquor tax. However, you will need to complete a separate application to register for the sales/use tax that you will need to file and pay.
IDOR will automatically send you a request for an application once you have been registered for the liquor tax or you can register online. You may register by visiting the IDOR website or by completing and mailing in Form REG-1. Applications submitted electronically will be processed significantly faster than applications submitted by mail. When completing Form REG-1, Step 3, question 11, write “Direct Wine Shipper”. When completing Step 3, question 13, applicants should select “sales to Illinois Consumers” and “Liquor at Retail” as type of business. *IMPORTANT: WAIT UNTIL AFTER YOU RECEIVE YOUR SHIPPER’S LICENSE BEFORE FILING THE REG-1 TO AVOID LICENSING COMPLICATIONS.*
Once the application is processed you will receive an Illinois Business Authorization Certificate of Registration. Your Sales/Use Tax Account Identifier Number will be listed on the certificate. Keep track of the number because it will be needed on sales/use tax payment forms.
Note: Do not confuse your identification numbers. You will receive a Liquor License number, an Illinois Business Tax number (IBT), and a Sales/Use Tax Account number. The Sales/Use Tax Account Number is sometimes also referred to as an IBT number. However; this number is different from the IBT number that is used to pay the liquor tax.
Winery Shippers are required to file and pay state sales tax and excise tax on all shipments to IL consumers. The state sales tax is 6.25%; payment schedules will depend on the estimated amount of total sales. Local sales tax is not required.
Excise taxes must be filed and paid every month, including months in which 0 shipments occurred. Once your Winery Shipper’s License has been issued, the IDOR will mail you tax form RL-26-W “Liquor Direct Wine Shipper Return.” Winery Shippers have the option of filling the form electronically on the IDOR Website or by mail. Winery Shippers who choose to file and pay electronically will receive a discount of 2% if their return and payment are filed and paid on time. This discount is not available to those that use the paper method.
Annie Bones, Wine Institute
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
Is the retail to consumer shipping battle headed to the Supreme Court?
October 15th, 2007
The issue of direct shipments by retailers to consumers has become a very hot topic of late. As of today, retailers can ship to less than half of the number of states to which producing wineries can ship. The Specialty Wine Retailers Association is fighting hard with both legislative efforts and litigation to open more states for retail to consumer shipments. The heated battle in Illinois, where out-of-state retailers recently lost the ability to ship to consumers under HB 429, raised national awareness to this issue.
The fundamental question is whether the decision in Granholm v. Heald that said states must treat in-state and out-of-state wineries evenhandedly should also apply to in-state and out-of-state retailers. R. Corbin Houchins recently made two posts (September 18th and October 5th) that do an excellent job of highlighting the legal questions that come into play when attempting to extend Granholm to retailers. In his October 5th post, Mr. Houchins indicates his disagreement with the reasoning of the recent and important Arnold’s Wines v. Boyle opinion, which upheld discrimination against out-of-state retailers in New York.
There is a very interesting recent article, with substantial background materials for lawyers who do not practice in the subject area, on FindLaw.com titled “The Fight Over State Laws Favoring In-State Alcohol Purveyors: Do Such Laws Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause?” that also examines the important ruling in Arnold’s Wines. This article is definitely worth reading.
The Court has had to examine the intersection between the dormant Commerce Clause idea and the Twenty-First Amendment a number of times. Two years ago, in the seminal case of Granholm v. Heald, the Court appeared to send a message that while the Twenty-First Amendment may indeed empower states in some ways, it does not trump the anti-discrimination, anti-balkanization norm of the Commerce Clause.
The federal district judge in the recent Arnold case in New York properly acknowledged the importance of Granholm. Nevertheless, the judge held that Granholm’s ban on state discrimination against out-of-staters applied only to state laws regulating producers of alcohol, not laws (such as the one at issue in the recent New York case) that regulated wholesalers or retailers.
The New York judge’s interpretation of Granholm is, I believe, in error.
The Arnold’s Wines case will likely impact current (Texas, California) and future (Illinois?) cases in the battle over retail to consumer shipments and could possibly end up in the Supreme Court, where a favorable decision could potentially open the legislative floodgates for retailers as Granholm did for wineries in 2005.
Free the Grapes!: New Illinois Law to Expand Consumer Choice for Winery-to-Consumer Shipments from 5 to 50 States, But Corks Out-of-State Retailers
October 5th, 2007
From Free the Grapes!:
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday signed House Bill 429 which goes into effect June 1, 2008. The new law dramatically expands consumer choice for winery-to-consumer purchases made by Illinois wine consumers. Under the new law, wineries in all 50 states may purchase a permit to ship. Under the old law, wineries in just five states, including Illinois, were allowed to direct ship to Illinois consumers. The trading network of states with so-called ‘reciprocal’ wine shipping arrangements has decreased from a dozen to just five: New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon (changes to permit law in January 2008) and Illinois (changes to permit law in June 2008).
“The new law is a boon for winery-to-consumer shipments, and long overdue, but unfortunately it corks out-of-state retailers. An amendment, widely supported by Illinois consumers and Free the Grapes! would have allowed out-of-state retailers the same privileges as wineries. It was defeated by powerful Illinois retailers and wholesalers,” said Jeremy Benson, executive director, Free the Grapes!, a winery-consumer grassroots coalition.
Illinois wine shipping bill signed by governor
October 4th, 2007
Governor Blagojevich signed HB 429 yesterday, temporarily ending an extremely tough battle to pass wine shipping legislation in Illinois. The new laws will not take effect until June 1st, 2008. Illinois will move from a reciprocal state to a permit state for winery direct shipping and will also enable limited self distribution for wineries that produce less than 25,000 gallons per year.
HB 429 will allow Illinois retailers to ship to consumers, but will prohibit out of state retailers from doing the same. This will almost certainly be challenged by the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, who will seek evenhanded access to shipping directly to Illinois consumers.
For more information on HB 429, please see our previous post.
Discrimination Against Out-Of-State Retailers After Granholm
September 18th, 2007
Imminent revision of Illinois direct shipment law is producing much heated comment about retailer shipping rights, some trenchant and some off the mark, but all of significance beyond one state.
Illinois House Bill 429, sent to the governor for signature on August 8th, conforms to the all but universally held belief that Granholm condemns treating wineries differently depending upon the reciprocity or non-reciprocity of their states’ direct shipment laws. Ending reciprocity is not in itself controversial, and there is nothing particularly unusual about the way Illinois is going about it -conversion to a licensed shipper system with a volume cap (for both sales to consumers and direct distribution to retailers). One can argue about the constitutionality of volume caps, but that has not been the main issue in public media discussions lately.
Most attacks on the new law involve its allegedly unconstitutional exclusion of retailers (including those positioned as “virtual wineries”) from licensed shipment. The big question is whether Granholm prevents states from allowing deliveries to consumers from a bottle shop across town, but not from one across the state line.
I was recently misquoted in a trade magazine as saying the retailers might prove “unjust discrimination.” If injustice were enough to invalidate discriminatory liquor laws, statutes would be falling like drosophila in a gin bottle. It’s unjustified discrimination against interstate commerce relative to local commerce that condemns a law under the Commerce Clause, and justifying means only showing the discrimination is necessary to preserve certain state interests.
Exactly what those interests are remains subject to differences of opinion. Granholm is the most profound statement on the subject in many years. It is not, however, among the easiest Supreme Court opinions to encapsulate.
To understand Granholm, one must observe a distinction lawyers make between the essential rationale, or “holding,” of the case and incidental statements of judges. The holding is binding precedent and, if the case is a Supreme Court decision, pretty much determines what the federal constitution means in all subsequent cases decided by all other courts. Everything in the opinion not essential to the result is considered “said in passing” -obiter dicta in Latin, or “dicta” for short. Dicta may give important insights into judges’ reasoning and help predict their future decisions in other cases on appeal, but dicta don’t control the outcome of cases in lower courts. (An example of significant dicta is the proposition that reciprocal shipment laws are unconstitutional because they create trade zones, contrary to the purpose of the Commerce Clause. The Court was not deciding a case about reciprocity, so what it said on the subject was not essential to the result.)
Separating holdings from dicta is an exercise of judgment. For Granholm, a reasonable reading begins with the formulation of the Supreme Court in its decision to grant review of the lower court decisions and picks up the facts the Court seemed to regard as dispositive. That produces a line of reasoning: “The Commerce Clause forbids overt discrimination favoring local commerce relative to interstate commerce, except in very limited circumstances. A state that allows its own sellers to ship directly to consumers but restricts out-of-state sellers in shipping directly to the same consumers is overtly discriminating. No relevant exception applies because (1) historical and constitutional analysis shows that the supposed 21st Amendment right of states to discriminate in favor of in-state producers when they regulate direct shipment of wine does not, in fact, exist, (2) as with any other article of commerce, the burden of justifying discrimination is on the states, and (3) neither state proved it needed to engage in discrimination to advance a legitimate local purpose that could not be adequately served by other means. Therefore, the discriminatory laws are invalid under the Commerce Clause.”
From the rationale of the case and the key facts noted in the opinion, one can extract the holding, which is in effect a decisional algorithm lower courts must apply unless the Supreme Court modifies it in a subsequent opinion. Put in the form of a conditional statement, a permissible interpretation of the Granholm holding might look like this:
If:
- Law 1 of a state authorizes businesses resident in the state to sell and ship wine directly to consumers within the state.
- Law 2 of the same state either prohibits, or renders economically impractical, wine shipments from out-of-state businesses.
- The state claims the discrimination is justified because it is necessary for preventing sales of wine to minors, for collecting excise taxes on wine, facilitating orderly markets, protecting public health and safety, and ensuring regulatory accountability.
- Out-of-state wine sellers face the loss of state and federal licenses if they fail to comply with state law regarding sales to minors and payment of taxes.
- There is no reason to believe direct shipment by out-of-state sellers would cause more access by minors than direct shipment by in-state sellers.
- Out-of-state wine sellers have a history of complying with tax reporting and payment procedures associated with distribution through three tiers.
- The state’s objectives related to orderly markets, public health and safety and accountability can be achieved with ordinary licensing requirements and modern means of transmitting information, without discrimination based on licensee location.
- The TTB can revoke the out-of-state wine seller’s federal basic permit for violation of the state’s laws, resulting in inability to sell in any other state.
- The state does not demonstrate that, notwithstanding the above factors, its legitimate objectives can be achieved only by discriminating against interstate commerce.
Then:
Law 1 and Law 2 cannot constitutionally coexist. The state has to change one of them, to treat in-state and out-of-state sellers on evenhanded terms.
Different observers will put different lists of “if-clauses” in the holding, depending on what facts they conclude were essential. If I were arguing the pro-commerce case, I’d like to take items 4 through 8 out of the holding, demoting them to “makeweight” statements that support the outcome but weren’t essential to it. The states and their allies would, of course, like to expand the list.
The differences are important, because parties wanting a pro-regulation response in a Commerce Clause case will have to find an essential if-clause unsatisfied. There are two traditional routes to that. Pointing out factual distinctions that prevent checking off a necessary condition is known as “distinguishing” a case. Expanding the list of if-clauses to embrace so many facts that the decision would be repeated only in a precisely identical case is called “limiting the case to its facts,” a step just short of overruling. Post-Granholm litigation involving industry members other than wineries or licensed beverages other than wine is going to be all about making and parrying attempts to distinguish the Granholm decision or limit it to its facts.
One blogger on the Illinois issue described fanciful attempts to distinguish famous civil and criminal rights cases on irrelevant fact differences (school segregation of Hispanics versus African-Americans, etc.), arguing that it would be equally silly to distinguish Granholm on the basis of retailer versus winery. Rights cases like Brown and Miranda, however, contain no suggestion that they turn on such peripheral differences. By contrast, Granholm makes explicit reference to features of wineries, established in the record of lower court proceedings, that support the majority decision.
Three glaring differences between the two producer cases decided in Granholm and the impending retailer cases make the outcome of the latter problematic. First, wineries have a track record of filing shipment reports, excise tax returns, and other compliance documents in multiple states, without creating collection problems. Second, a federal layer of winery regulation means that punishment for violations can be nationwide loss of access to markets, not merely loss of the state whose laws were violated, by action against the basic permit. Retailers do not hold federal basic permits. Third, it seems likely the states will have some factual ammunition to bolster the argument that interstate retailing will present them with sellers that are both much more numerous and less demonstrably law-abiding than wineries.
In Granholm the states relied heavily on a free pass to discriminate when the goods are liquor, with a very sketchy presentation on the need for of discriminatory treatment to achieve regulatory ends. Now that everyone knows location discrimination will have to be justified by demonstrated necessity, the states may make a better factual record. Justification is not easy, but it is certainly not impossible. The Granholm court noted, as an example, Maine’s right to discriminate directly against out-of-state game fish to protect its piscine population against exotic species. The various interests advanced by the states in Granholm were not dismissed as spurious, only as not demonstrably unprotectible by nondiscriminatory means.
So where does that leave non-Illinois retailers wishing to ship to Illinois residents?
There is plenty of comfort for the pro-trade retailer position among the Granholm dicta, but to win a lawsuit simply by citing Granholm, the retailers will have to meet the conditions of the if-clauses the courts see as part of its holding. Failing that, they will have to persuade the courts not merely to apply Granholm, but to extend the holding beyond its facts. In that endeavor, they would be aided by dicta in Granholm, which, though not binding, might encourage judges to take a more expansive view. In particular, the statement that citizens have a right of access to the markets of other states on equal terms contains an echo of lofty principle.
There is no ordained outcome. The next round will depend on how well the parties play the litigation game and the predilections of human beings who decide cases.
Free the Grapes! Legislation and Litigation Update
August 8th, 2007
From Jeremy Benson at Free the Grapes! :
Free the Grapes! Media Update
August 2007
Now that we’re at the end of most state legislative sessions, we thought it timely to provide an update on direct-to-consumer (DTC) wine direct shipping as of month-end July 2007. Here are some highlights, followed by a more detailed description.
Highlights:
o DTC legislation was considered in 23 states;
o Two states transitioned from reciprocal to a DTC permit system (MO, WV) with additional states pending (OR, IL).
o The legal direct shipping states for wineries represent 78% of wine consumption in the U.S., although retailers can reach far fewer states.
Wins:
- Florida: the third largest state for wine enjoyment, remains a legal state for winery shipments after a fierce defense of the court order that allowed shipping;
- Hawaii: a concerted effort to reduce quantity limits failed;
- Missouri: transitioned from reciprocal to permit status (no fee);
- North Dakota: increased shipping quantity limits;
- Virginia: now allows Internet retailers without a physical presence to direct ship;
- West Virginia: replaced reciprocal status with permit bill.
Losses:
- Arkansas: DTC permit bill failed in committee;
- New Mexico: reciprocal transition bill failed due largely to opposition by wholesalers and the beer lobby;
- Georgia: effort to replace cumbersome law with permit bill failed;
- Texas: passed a law limiting DTC shipping from in-state retailers outside their particular county;
- Ohio: passed potentially unworkable permit system for DTC shipments, including capacity cap of 150,000 gallons;
- Legal rulings supported the on-site sale requirement in ME, and opposed a challenge to TN’s shipping prohibition.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Wine Institute provided significant input to the following summary of state activity this year.
States with Legislation Under Consideration
Wisconsin – For 20 years, Wisconsin has been a reciprocal state, allowing its consumers to purchase wine directly from wineries as well as in-state wine retailers. But consumers will lose these privileges if the Budget Bill passes as it is currently written. Anti-consumer provisions were slipped into the Senate version of the 384-page, $66 billion, two-year Budget Bill in mid-July. The conference committee will now reconcile differences in the Senate and Assembly versions of the budget bill.
Illinois – House Bill 429 passed both House and Senate and is before the governor for signature. It creates a winery-only DTC shipping permit that replaces the existing reciprocity law. The Specialty Wine Retailers Association was unsuccessful in securing an amendment continuing shipments from out-of-state retailers, although in-state retailers were successful at maintaining their in-state shipping privilege.
Additional States
Alaska –House Bill 34 (Ledoux) would specifically allow in-state wineries to make DTC shipments to AK consumers, with a 5-gallon per shipment limit. Status: passed House and Senate, and was signed by the Governor on 5/31/07.
Arkansas – Senate Bill 592 (Whitaker), a positive bill that would have created a DTC shippers permit for wineries, died in House Rules Committee March 30.
Connecticut — Senate Bill 1204 was passed into law and changes the time period specified in the DTC shipping statute from 60 days to 2 months for the 5 gallon limit.
Florida – Shipping into FL is continues to be legal after competing bills—with and without discriminatory capacity caps—were considered but ultimately died in committees.
Georgia – House Bill 159 (Willard) and its companion Senate Bill 56 (Untermann) would have replaced the state’s convoluted shipping law with a DTC shipping license for all wineries (and retailers in SB56). The bills died in committee. Wholesaler-supported House Bill 393 (Stephens) sought to create new “domestic farm winery” and national “farm winery” categories with discriminatory capacity caps. The bill died in committee.
Hawaii – House Bill 1093 (Say) and Senate Bill 1019 (Taniguchi) sought to reduce consumer choice by limiting shipments under the existing DTC shipping permit from six cases per winery per consumer per year, to six cases per household per year. Both bills died in committee.
Idaho – House Bill 11 would have modified the permit legislation passed in 2006 to allow wholesalers and retailers in Idaho and other states to ship wine directly to consumers. Bill died in committee.
Maine – Senate Bill 54 (Bromley) would have created a DTC shippers permit for wine & beer. The bill passed the Senate on 6/12/07, but was killed in the house later that week.
Missouri — The Governor of Missouri signed SB 299 transitioning Missouri from a reciprocal state to a permit state effective August 28, 2007. The new permit law requires all wineries to obtain a direct shipping permit (no fee), limit shipments to two cases per consumer per month, submit an annual report by January 31, and pay excise taxes. The direct shipping permit application and instructions are available on the Wine Institute website at www.wineinstitute.org/programs/shipwine.
Nebraska – L441 (Mcdonald) will allocate funds raised by the existing $500 DTC shipper license fee paid by all wineries to be deposited to the NE Winery and Grape Producers Promotional Fund. The bill was signed by the Governor on May 30, 2007.
New Mexico – House Bill 1018 (Silva) passed the House, but was killed in the Senate after intense pressure from wholesalers and the beer lobby. It would have replaced reciprocity with a DTC shipping permit for wineries and retailers.
North Dakota – Senate Bill 2135 was signed into law and makes favorable changes to existing DTC shipping provisions, including: increased quantity limit from one to three cases per month, removed “reciprocal” provision passed in 2005 but never implemented, and removed vague language.
Ohio – During closing stages of budget process an amendment was adopted that will create a potentially unworkable permit system for DTC shipments into Ohio. The law has a capacity cap of 150,000 gallons, along with “per family household” aggregate limit that may prevent wineries from being able to ship even if they qualify for the permit. The bill was signed by the Governor on June 30 and becomes effective October 1, 2007.
Oklahoma – Several bills in the House and Senate were introduced, including a voter referendum to allow OK consumers to receive DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries, but a permit system has not been outlined. All bills died in committee.
Oregon – House Bill 2171 (Minnis) would transition state from a reciprocal DTC to a permit system for wineries and retailers. Status: The bill passed the House & Senate, and was sent to the Governor for signature in June.
Pennsylvania – House Bill 255 (Godshall) and Senate Bill 293 (Ferlo) are positive DTC shipping permit bills with a $100 registration fee, two cases per month to any individual. Taxes collected. Status: Both bills remain in Committee.
Tennessee – House Bill 1850 (Todd) creates a DTC shipping permit for 2 cases annually. Provisions: $100 fee, annual reports, annual excise and sales tax payments (companion bill was SB 1977, Stanley). Both bills died in Committee.
Texas – Senate Bill 1229 (Gallegos) was signed by the governor May 5, and limits the ability of TX retailers to use common carriers for DTC delivery outside their particular county. The bill was aimed at pending litigation spearheaded by the Specialty Wine Retailers Association seeking statewide sales via common carrier.
Virginia – House Bill 1784 (Cosgrove) and Senate Bill 1289 (Watkins) augmented current direct shipper permit to clarify that those shipments are by common carrier only, and created separate allowance for any legal shipper to make deliveries of up to 4 cases of wine to a consumer in their own vehicle. Additionally, Senate Bill 984 (Edwards) also became law, creating an “internet wine retailer license” to allow sales by a retailer having no physical premise.
West Virginia – Senate Bill 712 (Kessler) was signed by the governor and, among many other provisions, replaced reciprocity with a DTC permit bill for wineries, wholesalers and retailers.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Maine – As previously reported elsewhere, on March 5, U.S. District Court Judge Carter adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation issued three months ago in the Cherry Hill (Tanford/Epstein) suit. This ruling supports an on-site sale requirement for any sales to consumers, contrary to an opinion rendered in December 2006 in KY ruling that on-site provisions were unconstitutional.
Tennessee – As previously reported elsewhere, the U.S. District Court in Tennessee ruled in favor of the state regarding what most thought was an ill-advised lawsuit (Jelovsek v. Bresden). The plaintiffs alleged that consumers faced a greater burden in traveling to another state to purchase wine in person at a winery than they faced in buying wine directly from a TN winery tasting room. The judge was not convinced, and the wholesalers have promoted their “victory” to bolster arguments for the preeminence of the 3-tier system in all matters.
Texas – All summary judgment motions have been filed. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 21 in Dallas. Wholesalers claim that passage of Senate Bill 1229 moots this lawsuit (see Texas paragraph under legislation, above).
Massachusetts — Motions for summary judgment are expected this winter in the case that seeks to overturn the 30,000 gallon production cap in the DTC law. Family Winemakers of California is the lead plaintiff.
Wine shipping bill in Illinois moves to Governor’s desk
August 7th, 2007
The long battle in Illinois is coming to an end (well, at least for now). The Illinois Senate passed HB 429 today by a vote of 49-5. Governor Blagojevich is expected to sign the bill. More details of the legislation can be found in a previous post. If signed, Illinois would move from a reciprocal state for winery direct shipping to a permit state and self-distribution from small wineries that produce less than 25,000 gallons per year would be allowed. Out of state retailers would be prohibited from shipping into Illinois.
We will have much more to say about the implications of HB 429 in the next few days…
Illinois Direct to Consumer Wine Shipping Bill One Step Closer
June 6th, 2007
The Illinois House of Representatives passed Illinois HB 429, which allows direct to consumer shipping by out-of-state wineries, by a vote of 92-6 yesterday. If passed by the Senate and signed by Governor Rod Blagojevich, the bill will afford individual Illinois residents the opportunity to receive up to 12 cases of wine per year from permitted wineries.
As mentioned in our previous post, HB 429 also gives small wineries – those producing less than 25,000 gallons per year – the privilege of shipping directly to Illinois retailers. This provision will increase access to Illinois for those wineries who fall within the production limit requirement.
As other articles have mentioned, similar legislation (SB 2180) was passed unanimously by the Senate last year. Thus, the horizon looks bright for HB 429. Stay tuned…
Deadline extended for Illinois House bill
May 11th, 2007
Illinois House Bill 429, which would move Illinois from a reciprocal state to a limited direct state for winery direct shipping, did not see a vote by the May 10th deadline, but the deadline for third reading and final action was extended until May 18th. The bill would create a permit system, establish a 12 case per individual per year volume limitation, and introduce excise and sales tax reporting requirements. These changes would go into effect on July 1st, 2007.
HB 429 would also allow for self-distribution (the ability for wineries to ship directly to retailers) for small wineries that produce less than 25,000 gallons per year. 95% of the Illinois wineries produce less than 25,000 gallons. A few additional things to note about HB 429:
- Out of state retailers would not be allowed to ship directly to Illinois consumers
- A new requirement would help ensure that minors do not receive alcohol:
At the expense of the licensee, the licensee shall receive a delivery confirmation from the express company, common carrier, or contract carrier indicating the location of the delivery, time of delivery, and the name and signature of the individual 21 years of age or older who accepts delivery.
Read the full text of the bill here here:
Read more here:
Free The Grapes! legislative update
March 19th, 2007
Free the Grapes! recently provided an update on direct to consumer shipping legislation and litigation for 2007. As you can see below, many changes are likely to come this year.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Wine Institute provided the following summary of direct shipping legislation around the country.
Alaska –House Bill 34 (Ledoux) would specifically allow in-state wineries to make DTC shipments to AK consumers, with a 5-gallon per shipment limit. Status: passed House 2/14/07 and moves to Senate Community and Regional Affairs and to Senate Labor and Commerce.
Arkansas – Senate Bill 592 (Whitaker), a positive bill, creates a DTC shippers permit for wineries. Provisions include: 24 cases annually, $10 permit application fee, sales and excise tax payments annually. Status: Introduced.
Connecticut — Senate Bill 1204 (Joint Committee on General Law) makes a change to the time period specified in the DTC shipping statute from 60 days to 2 months for the 5 gallon limit. Status: Passed out of General Law on 2/27/07.
Florida – Shipping into FL is currently legal. Senate Bill 126 (Saunders) and SB 2282 (Geller) would implement a version of the industry’s model direct shipping bill, but both bills include a discriminatory 250,000 gallon capacity cap opposed by consumers and wineries. Alternatively, House Bill 1217 (Bogdanoff) does not include a cap.
Georgia – House Bill 159 (Willard) and its companion Senate Bill 56 (Untermann) create a DTC shipping license for all wineries (and retailers in SB56), repealing existing law which prohibits wineries with a wholesaler from obtaining a license. Other provisions: $100 permit fee, 24-case annual limit, sales and excise taxes to be collected. This bill is getting industry support.
The wholesaler’s House Bill 393 (Stephens) includes a discriminatory 100,000 gallon capacity cap, creates a new “domestic farm winery” using at least 50% GA grapes, and a national “farm winery” definition of a winery under 100,000 gallons that uses at least 40% grapes from its state of domicile. Such wineries can obtain a DTC shipping permit to ship up to 20 cases of wine per consumer annually. Status: Favorably reported out of House Regulated Industries Committee on 2/21/07.
Hawaii – Two bills, House Bill 1093 (Say) and Senate bill 1019 (Taniguchi), appear to be dead in committee. They would have reduced consumer choice by limiting shipments under the existing DTC shipping permit to 6 cases annually per household from an aggregate of wineries (current system is 6 cases per winery).
Idaho – House Bill 11 would modify the permit legislation passed in 2006 to allow wholesalers and retailers in Idaho and other states to ship wine directly to consumers. Status: Referred to House Revenue and Taxation on 1/22/07.
Illinois – House Bill 429 (Acevedo) is similar to last year’s transition bill that creates a winery-only DTC shipping permit to replace the existing reciprocity law. Provisions include a tiered permit fee based on size of the winery from $150 to $1,000, 12 cases annually, with sales and excise tax collection. Free the Grapes! is encouraging inclusion of retailers in the bill. Status: Passed from House Consumer Protection Committee on 2/20/07 by vote of 11-0. There is also a similar bill in the Senate (SB123, Silverstein).
Iowa – ABC hearings were held on 2/24/07. The ABC recommended to legislators that the reciprocity statute be replaced with a DTC shipping permit system. Other proposals addressed at the hearing include changing the local winery preferential tax rate, changes in Iowa wine labeling rules for IA wineries, and changes to existing designation of 5% of wine tax revenues to Iowa Wine Development Board. Status: Awaiting action by legislature.
Maine – Senate Bill 54 (Bromley) creates DTC shippers permit for wine & beer. Winery or retailer obtains a COA and nonresident shipper’s license ($100 fee). Annual sales and excise tax payments required. Status: Introduced.
Missouri – House Bill 944 (Cooper) creates a DTC permit for wineries to ship 2 cases per month, and requires permit and tax collection. Carriers must obtain permit. Amendment to add retailers drafted on 2/26/07. Status: Introduced.
Montana – Senate Bill 524 (Wanzenried) proposes changes such as adding “purposely, knowingly or negligently” language to the connoisseur’s license, which does not currently work for consumers or wineries. Status: Reported “Do Pass” from Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs on 2/21/07.
New Mexico – House Bill 1018 (Silva) creates DTC shipping permit for wineries and retailers to replace reciprocity. Provisions: $50 fee, pay excise and Gross Receipts Tax, 24 cases annually. Status: Passed favorably on 9-1 vote from House Business & Industries Committee on 2/25/07. Companion bill is Senate Bill 1047 (Taylor).
New York – Interestingly, Assembly Bill 4345 (Destito) replicates the wine DTC shipping program for beer manufacturers and beer wholesalers. Free the Grapes! has no activities or campaigns concerning this bill because it deals with beer and not wine. Status: Introduced.
North Dakota – Senate Bill 2135 (Senate Finance and Taxation Committee) makes changes to existing DTC shipping statute. Provisions: increases amount of shipments to 3 cases per month (currently 1 case per month), removes “reciprocal” provision passed in 2005 but never implemented. Removed vague language that could have been interpreted to allow an in-state winery to also hold a wholesalers license – clarifies no self-distribution, which was believed to be the case by in-state industry at this time anyway. Status: Passed Senate 1/23/07 and now to House Finance and Taxation.
Oklahoma – Several bills in the House and Senate have been introduced, several of which request a voter referendum to allow OK consumers to receive DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries, but a permit system has not been outlined.
Oregon – House Bill 2171 (Minnis) transitions OR from a reciprocal DTC to a permit system. Would cover wineries only. Status: Introduced. This is the OLCC bill. House Bill 2488 (House Business and Labor Committee) is similar, allowing wineries, retailers and “associations” to obtain permits. $50 fee. Excise taxes to be paid. Unlimited shipments. Status: Introduced.
Pennsylvania – House Bill 255 (Godshall) is a positive DTC shipping permit bill with a $100 registration fee, 2 cases per month to any individual. Taxes collected. Status: Introduced.
Tennessee – House Bill 1850 (Todd) creates a DTC shipping permit for 2 cases annually. Provisions: $100 fee, annual reports, annual excise and sales tax payments. Status: Introduced. Companion bill in Senate (1977, Stanley).
Virginia – Senate Bill 984 (Edwards) creates an “internet wine retailer license” to allow sales by a retailer having no physical premise. Status: Passed both House and Senate and sent to Governor on 2/22/07.
West Virginia – Senate Bill 712 (Kessler) is an omnibus liquor bill, that among many provisions, includes creation of a DTC shipping permit for wineries, wholesalers and retailers. Provisions include: $150 permit fee, 2 cases per month, sales and excise tax payments. Removes self distribution privilege for instate wineries. Original 50% tax increase has been removed. Creates a “wine spa” license, a wine B&B license, and a “mini” winery license to replace farm winery permits.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Texas — The Specialty Wine Retailers Association (SWRA, www.specialtywineretailers.org) litigation in Texas to address that state’s discriminatory stance between in-state and out-of-state retailers is in its discovery phase. Until the case is decided, out-of-state retailers may continue to ship to Texas consumers.
Massachusetts — The Family Winemakers of California reports that its lawsuit against the State of Massachusetts seeking to overturn the 30,000 gallon production cap in the DTC law is still in the discovery phase. Once discovery is complete both sides will be preparing motions for summary judgment for later in the year.
Direct shipping bill passes West Virginia Congress
March 14th, 2007
In May of 2005, in the case of Granholm v. Heald, the United States Supreme Court effectively invalidated the practice of reciprocity because it discriminates against wineries in non-reciprocal states. At that time, there were 13 reciprocity states. Today, there are only seven reciprocity states left (Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, and West Virginia), and at the end of 2007 there may be only two as Oregon, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, and West Virginia have legislation pending that would move their states into the “limited direct”, or permit state category.
West Virginia may be the first reciprocal state to change in 2007. Senate Bill 712 recently passed the West Virginia Congress and is expected to be signed by the Governor. This bill would create a permit system where in-state and out-of-state wineries can apply for and receive a license to ship up to two cases of wine per month directly to adult residents. Permitted wineries would be responsible for reporting monthly excise tax (beginning July 1, 2007), sales tax, and a schedule of shipments made in the previous month. The permit would cost “One hundred fifty dollars per year for a direct shipper’s license for a licensee who sells and ships only wine and two hundred fifty dollars for a direct shipper’s license who ships and sells wine, nonfortified dessert wine, port, sherry or Madeira wines” plus a brand registration fee of $100 per brand for three years. Common carriers shipping into WV would be required to collect an adult signature upon delivery of wine packages.
One thing to note about this bill is that it would level-down on self-distribution, meaning that in-state wineries would lose their privilege to ship wine directly to retailers. There are also some requirements that are a bit gray as they are written, but will hopefully be sorted out and clarified after the bill is signed by the Governor and the rules are promulgated by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner.
The broader effects of Costco
May 1st, 2006
I. Discrimination against Direct Distribution from Outside the State
There seems little doubt that Costco�s reading of Granholm will survive appeal. Nothing appeared in the Costco record to distinguish direct shipment of beer and wine to retailers from direct shipment of wine to consumers.
Most states with wine industries allow local wineries some form of direct distribution. Only Washington extends an equal privilege to out-of-state wineries, a result of the Costco remedial legislation. A few states, such as New Jersey, have taken preemptive action by eliminating or restricting direct distribution rights of in-state producers. Limiting direct distribution according to annual production of the producer is emerging as a common theme. Florida recently arrived at a legislative “compromise” that set the cutoff just above the size of the largest Florida winery, a transparently protectionist measure that may or may not evade analysis as discrimination, but, like all size caps, is open to Commerce Clause objection for disproportionate burden on commerce originating outside the state.
Thus, the immediate concern is with legislation in the states that must level up or down. The Costco decision accommodated state concerns by leveling down (with a stay for legislative override) and thus does not constitute precedent for requiring open access to local markets. Because other lower courts may also find the unconstitutionality of discriminatory schemes in the protectionist measures favoring local wineries, rather than in the more basic regulatory objective of controlling the traffic pattern of liquor entering the state, neither Granholm nor Costco suggests that suppliers can rely on widespread opening of markets to direct distribution.
II. Posting and Ancillary Restraints
Costco illustrates a great divide in basic Sherman Act jurisprudence. For some observers, no contract, combination, or conspiracy can be inferred from private actors� facially unilateral acquiescence in state restraints, even if the effects are anticompetitive. That is, roughly, the Fisher v. Berkeley view. See, e.g., Sisters of St. Vincent Health Services, Inc. v. Morgan County, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1046 (S.D. Ind. 2005), citing Massachusetts Food Ass’n v. Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 197 F.3d 560, 564-66 (1st Cir.1999).
Naturally, the district court in Seattle regarded Miller v. Hedlund as controlling 9th Circuit precedent. The reasoning in Miller is difficult to pin down. It appears influenced by anticompetitive effects (which we know are alone insufficient), but also to rely on the participation of private actors, consisting of filling in the blanks of a posting system which was then enforced by the state. The opinion mentions potential for collusion, but does not seem to require it. Last December�s antitrust rulings in Costco clearly rest on the wholesaler�s participation in the form of supplying prices that then become mandatory by the power of the state, resulting in a hybrid system requiring state supervision (which was lacking in Washington’s case) to survive preemption. However, all the U.S. Supreme Court authority overturning price posting deals with systems that require or condone private conduct that itself violate the Sherman Act. The Costco judge, like the Court of Appeals in Miller, seems to find a combination by, so to speak, putting the state in the same room with each private actor who posts a price. By contrast, Midcal and the other Supreme Court cases invalidating price posting laws deal with systems that send the private actors to a room where they constitute the unlawful combination on their own. How the Fisher-Miller dissonance resolves is, I think, the most important issue for the Costco appeal.
Another significant issue in applying Costco to the law in other states is the extent to which the cluster of other restraints that frequently accompany posting would fall with it. I see three bases on which that might occur. First, the court might conclude that the system is so integrated that the legislature would not have enacted the other restraints if it had known posting itself to be illegal. Second, on general principles of equity, a court issuing an injunction against unlawful conduct has power to enjoin lawful conduct associated with it if necessary to render complete relief from the threatened harm. Third, a court might conclude that the other restraints constituted per se antitrust violations on their own, which appears as an alternative basis for decision in the December opinion on summary judgment motions, incorporated by reference in the conclusions of law for the final judgment.
That third possible approach would extend Costco�s effects to more states, including some without price posting. It is, however, the most controversial of the three, as it requires finding a public-private hybrid restraint without an overt role for private parties, such as providing prices the state then enforces.
In sum, Costco is not carte blanche for ignoring other states’ posting laws, although within the Ninth Circuit an aggressive position could be justified. As a rough first look, here are some immediately vulnerable points: AZ quantity discount limits, CA beer posting, CT posting, DE delivered wholesale pricing, FL malt beverage price change waiting period and possibly the limits on quantity discounts, GA posting, HI possibly restrictions on quantity discounts, ID posting, IN posting, IA posting (possibly), KS posting (possibly), ME posting and discount restraints, MD posting and quantity discount ban (already analyzed in TFWS I through III), MA posting, MI posting and quantity discount ban, MN posting and possibly restriction on quantity discounts, MO posting and 1% limit on quantity discounts, NH beer posting, NY posting (including amendments effective in September), NC quantity discount ban, OH posting, OK posting and quantity discount ban, OR price record-keeping (possibly, because of deterrent effect on spot pricing) and price uniformity requirement, SD posting, TN posting and quantity discount ban, VT posting, VA posting, WV beer posting.
III. Central Warehousing
Central warehousing bans are difficult to analyze, because (unlike the case in Washington) they are often based on interpretation of retail license privileges or tied house laws, rather than on express prohibition. Caveats regarding ultimate application of Costco to posting and its ancillary restraints apply strongly to central warehousing bans, because they may appear more severable from direct restraint on price than, e.g., quantity discount bans. The Costco antitrust opinion of December and the recent findings of fact and conclusions of law do not present a clear rationale for distinguishing the central warehousing ban, which it classified as an antitrust violations, from the retailer-to-retailer sales ban, which it found was unilateral state action not preempted by federal antitrust law. Thus, it is difficult to predict how courts, even those following the Miller v. Hedlund line on antitrust combinations, will respond to the Costco ruling if asked to evaluate central warehousing in other states.
The following represents a currently incomplete survey of states potentially affected by Costco on use of central retail warehouses:
Central retail warehouses banned: AL, AR, CO, DE, ID, IL, IA, KS, MD, MI, NH, NM
Not banned: AK, AZ, CA, CT, DC, MA, OR
We are still researching the status of central warehousing in the states not listed above.
Compromise in Illinois passes Senate vote, moves to House
March 6th, 2006
Winery and beer distributor groups reached a compromise in the drawn out battle in Illinois. Senate Bill 2180 passed the Senate vote unanimously,and now moves to a House vote. The compromise would allow the nearly 200 Illinois wineries to sell wine at the winery as well as at two additional retail locations in the state.
Direct shipping would also be allowed into and out of Illinois. In exchange for dropping a previous visit requirement, the wineries agreed to drop the proposed per customer volume limit from 36 cases per individual per year to 12 cases per individual per year.
Illinois wineries fight back
February 7th, 2006
With the help of the press, wineries in Illiinois turn the tables on the powerful Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois.
