Posts from the Oregon Category
Wine Distribution Notes - Release 28
May 21st, 2008
The latest version of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing or downloading. Release 28 highlights changes in the following categories: Age & Identity Verification, Rethinking Reciprocity and State Notes, specifically Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania. Headings of sections with substantial changes since the preceding release (published in early April, 2008) are highlighted, so that you can easily find the updated sections.
You can always view the most current version of Houchins’s Notes on Wine Distribution by visiting ShipCompliantBlog.com and clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right-hand side of the page.
Oregon - The Next Round is Just Starting
January 10th, 2008
With a new law allowing out-of-state wineries to sell directly to Oregon retailers, effective January 1, Oregon looked like a bright star in the winery self-distribution field. Oregon had chosen to level up, allowing both domestic and out-of-state wineries to sell direct to retailers. It seemed as if free trade in wine had arrived.
But, in a preemptive strike just before the New Year, the Oregon wholesalers decided that the new law was the perfect vehicle to attack central warehousing by Oregon chain retailers.
In an e-mail circulated in late December, the wholesalers told chain retailers operating in Oregon that “the central warehousing of wine by a retailer” was no longer allowed and that a “retail license does not allow the retailer to transport wine or beer from one licensed location to another, even if the two locations are owned by the same entity.”
Retailers, who had for years used Oregon wholesalers to import wine and then have it delivered to the retailer’s central warehouse for the retailer to transport it to their retail locations, found themselves scrambling when wholesalers refused to deliver wine to their warehouses, even before the new law took effect. This was not wine purchased in a direct sale between the out-of-state winery and the retailer, but wines imported by, and purchased from, the Oregon wholesaler, as had been done for years.
The regular readers of the ShipCompliant blog may recall that the issue of central warehousing by Oregon retailers was discussed extensively in a prior blog post titled “An Exchange on Central Warehousing”. While Oregon had no statute prohibiting the practice, the OLCC had enunciated the position that central warehousing was not consistent with its regulations. However, the blog post carefully analyzed the Commission’s position and found it unsupported by law or logic.
For retailers in Oregon, the OLCC’s position was strange because many of the chain retailers had been receiving wine into their central warehouses and delivering to their own stores for YEARS. Some of them had letters from the Commission specifically approving the practice. The Commission took no steps to revoke these prior letters and let the practice continue.
So the wholesalers took it upon themselves to see if they could end retailers’ practice of central warehousing. While not articulated directly, the wholesalers are apparently relying on the provisions of the new wine self-distribution law to claim the practice is now outlawed. First, the new law does require that wine purchased direct from a winery must be received at a premise with a license endorsed to receive direct sales. [Section 2.(5) of HB 2677.]
But does that mean that the wine, during transit, must always stop at a licensed location? Could the wine be stored and transported from an unlicensed location, such as a central warehouse, before coming to the premises with the license with the proper endorsement?
Second, the new law in Section 2b contains provisions relating to who may ship wine under this new permit. Apparently the wholesalers believe that since retailers are not mentioned as one of the licensees who may transport direct sales wine in this section, retailers may no longer transport or ship wine at ANY TIME, even between their own stores, a practice that had been allowed for years. Again, it is not clear that the new law dealing specifically with direct sales by wineries to retailers was designed to limit retailers’ rights to transport or ship their own inventories of wine. Apparently the struggle to define who can ship wine, and under what circumstances is now open for debate.
The OLCC has just convened a rule advisory committee this week to help draft the final regulations to implement the both Wine Direct Shipper and Wine Self-Distribution permits, with formal rulemaking to follow this spring. We can expect round two to be exciting as the wholesalers decided to open it with a quick punch before the bell.
New Oregon rules are live - reminder to get the new permit
January 3rd, 2008
Just a quick reminder that the new permit system took effect in Oregon on January 1st. Even if you previously had a reciprocal shipping permit to ship into Oregon, you now need their new permit to continue direct shipping. For wineries in states that were not considered to be “reciprocal” with Oregon, you can now apply for the new permit. Each permitted winery can ship up to two nine-liter cases per Oregon individual per month. Please see our previous posts below for more information and steps for applying for the direct shipping and self-distribution permits.
Oregon Direct Shipper Permit Applications Available
Indiana and Oregon - starkly different paths to wine shipping laws
Oregon to end reciprocity - permitted retailers and wineries can ship on January 1st
Oregon Direct Shipper Permit Applications Available
November 15th, 2007
On January 1, 2008 the legislation replacing Oregon’s reciprocity law with a permit system for the sale and shipment of wine directly from wineries will become effective. The new law requires wineries have a Direct Shipper Permit, pay an annual license fee of $50 and maintain a bond of at least $1000. Wineries with approved Direct Shipper Permits may ship up to two nine liter cases per month directly to an Oregon resident who is at least 21 years of age, must pay excise taxes and file monthly reports with the Privilege Tax Department. Wineries will be mailed monthly report forms within in 30 days of being issued a permit. The permit application and instructions on how to apply for a bond are currently available on the Wine Institute website.
Wineries may also apply for an Oregon Self-Distribution Permit at this time. Beginning January 1, 2008 Self-Distribution permit holders may ship directly to retailers in OR. In order to obtain the permit applicants must have an Oregon Certificate of Approval, pay a $100 fee and maintain a bond of at least $1000. There are additional reporting and tax requirements. More information about the Self-Distribution application process can be found on the OR Liquor Commission’s website.
Wineries applying for a Direct Shipper Permit and Self-Distribution Permit should keep the application processes separate. For example, an applicant will need to obtain one bond for the Direct Shipper permit and a second bond for the Self-Distribution permit. Should you have any questions please contact Annie Bones in Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at abones@wineinstitute.org.
Annie Bones, Wine Institute
Indiana and Oregon - starkly different paths to wine shipping laws
September 11th, 2007
Wine Spectator Online has a good article that compares the different paths that Indiana and Oregon took in arriving at their new rules. It’s definitely worth a read. Here are some excerpts:
Advocates of direct-to-consumer wine shipments recently scored two points in the win column: Oregon and Indiana. Both states now have more open direct-shipping laws, though they came about in starkly different ways and, unfortunately for Indiana wine lovers, probably face different levels of success in the long term. But for now, consumers in both states can legally receive wine shipments directly from in- and out-of-state wineries.
Because the judge focused on those two particular elements of Indiana’s law, the state’s existing direct-shipping rules remain intact. So long as the wineries are willing to ship and the courier services such as FedEx and UPS are willing to deliver, direct wine shipments to Indiana residents can commence. Unfortunately, however, Indiana consumers can’t count their chickens just yet. Since the law is written to limit individual households to 24 cases per year rather than the wineries themselves, the wineries have no way of knowing if they’ll be sending, say, the 25th case to a particular Indiana resident, and therefore violating the law. It’s a risk some wineries are willing to take-but not all of them.
Click here to read the full article.
Oregon to end reciprocity - permitted retailers and wineries can ship on January 1st
August 13th, 2007
After January 1st, there may be only two reciprocal states left. Oregon HB 2171 was signed by the governor on July 31st and is now enrolled. As mentioned in a previous post, Oregon is all set up to become a limited/direct permit state for direct to consumer shipping. Previously a reciprocal state, only wineries from other reciprocal states could ship wines to their Oregonian clients’ doors. Now wineries and retailers alike will be able to do so with, of course, some of the usual restrictions; a $50 direct shipping permit is required, all taxes are to be paid by the winery or retailer, and each holder of the direct shipper’s license may ship up to two cases per month per individual. These easy-going restrictions are pretty refreshing after the morass that some states are creating for those of us that just want to buy some wine.
Oregon was one of the few remaining states with reciprocal direct-shipping language. If Illinois HB 429 is signed by the governor, this will mean that there will only be three remaining states left with the “reciprocal” status. Sooner or later, Iowa, New Mexico, and Wisconsin also will become compliant with the Granholm ruling. Legislation is currently under construction in Wisconsin and is threatening to hinder consumer choice, so let’s cross our fingers and hope that all the remaining reciprocal states decide to follow in Oregon’s footsteps.
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.
Oregon Legislation Ends Reciprocity
June 26th, 2007
HB 2171 passed the Oregon Legislature just days prior to the end of the regular session. The new legislation removes reciprocal language from Oregon’s current wine shipping laws. In its place, HB 2171 creates a direct shipping permit system. In essence, the direct shipping permit will be available to all wineries and retailers who wish to ship wines directly to Oregon consumers.
HB 2171 allows a direct shipping permit holder to ship up to two nine-liter cases/month to Oregon consumers above the age of 21. Packages must be marked with age restrictions and signed for by a person 21 years of age or older at the time of delivery. Permit holders are responsible for all privilege taxes due under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 473.030. The fee for the direct shipping permit is $50.00/year. In addition to the permit fee, applicants must maintain a $1,000.00 bond.
If signed by Governor Ted Kulongoski, HB 2171 will take effect on January 1, 2008.
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.
Terroir in Court
October 2nd, 2006
For the first time in post-Granholm legal maneuvering, a court has recognized the geographic distinctiveness of wine as a factor in applying the “level playing field” requirement.
Kentucky is one of about eight states that responded to Granholm by authorizing only on-site sales. The argument by the wholesalers and their allies in favor of that approach was that applying the on-site requirement to all wineries, local and out-of-state, constituted equal treatment for Commerce Clause purposes.
The Granholm opinion had, of course, rejected New York’s argument that all wineries were treated equally because out-of-state sellers were, like local producers, entitled to rent warehouses and maintain offices in the state. Thus, we already knew a state could not adopt facially equal provisions that introduce substantial impracticalities for interstate sellers not shared by local wineries. The question was whether an on-site-only law was such a provision.
In Huber Winery v. Wilcher, a federal court in Kentucky ruled that Granholm forbids laws that allow residents to purchase wine at wineries in all locations, noting that the effect is to foreclose a larger number of wineries in the major producing states, while imposing only a minor inconvenience on consumers who travel to wineries in Kentucky and adjacent states. The opinion is important because (1) it applies the “strict scrutiny” test, which is standard for overt discrimination, to the de facto discrimination before it, and (2) it recognizes that practical availability of wine from one growing region does not compensate for denying practical access to the greater variety of wines from others –i.e., that “interstate commerce” is not all the same. In reaching the latter conclusion, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that “each winery’s products are distinctive,” expressly declaring that the consumer rights to interstate commerce recognized in Granholm are not satisfied by Kentuckians’ ability to purchase Tennessee and Indiana wine on-site, to the exclusion by travel distance of the products of California, Oregon and Washington.
An Exchange on Central Warehousing
July 10th, 2006
A reader reports a recent email from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) that begins, “[Y]our statement that [central warehousing] is not directly prohibited by law is not correct. There are several statutes that provide the basis for this prohibition.” That assertion could as well have been directed to me, as in a previous posting I classified Oregon as a state where the prohibition is based on policy, not statutory necessity.
The basis of the prohibition matters, because the time and resources required for a change differ greatly. Regulatory policies can change at the stroke of a pen (although it usually requires lobbying and a bit of luck to move agencies off their initial positions). Statutory rules, especially those favoring wholesalers, are likely to change only after an expensive and protracted lawsuit.
Listed below are the OLCC emailer’s justifications for prohibiting central warehousing, coupled with commentary. The dialog is important, because we can expect similar arguments in other states, varying in detail because of textual differences among statutes.
1. OLCC: “A retail off-premises licensee may not conduct the activities relating to central wholesaling . . . because that license does not include the necessary privileges of importing, storing, transporting or distributing of alcoholic beverages; it only allows the sale of alcohol.” That interpretation is required because other license statutes specifically allow manufacturers and wholesalers to “store” wine. COMMENT: Interestingly, the agency recasts warehousing as “wholesaling,” though of course no sale takes place. The argument seems to be that because a central retail warehouse involves “transporting” or, in a broad sense, “distributing,” it represents a license privilege that exists only if explicitly stated. However, numerous things done by retail licensees without regulatory objection are not listed in the retail license statute, including storing wine and other items in the back room. (The retail license statute does not authorize use of computers, or even electricity, but agencies typically do not object to unauthorized conduct of that type because it does not resemble an activity for which a non-retail license exists.) The argument that everything not expressly permitted is forbidden derives from the early Repeal days, when governments began relaxing total Prohibition bit by bit. More recent cases may narrow the distinction between liquor and other goods, making more room for the counter-theory that governmental permission to engage in a business includes all the ancillary activities needed to conduct it efficiently, if they are not expressly prohibited. In any event, basing a prohibition on absence of express permission looks very much like a statutory interpretation that the agency could, without fear of violating the law, reverse if it chose to.
2. OLCC: “[T]he tied house provisions in ORS 471.394 preclude a retail licensee from owning or having an interest in a wholesale licensee.” COMMENT: No one is talking about a wholesale license. There is no tied house prohibition against a retailer’s having an interest in itself. The agency seems to say that moving inventory around among stores is so much like distributing that they would require the company doing it to have a wholesaling license, which of course could not be issued because of the tied house laws. Again, an interpretation that is not compelled by statute.
3. OLCC: “[A] retailer may not receive deliveries of wine or beer at a central warehouse because ORS 471.305 prohibits a wholesale malt beverage and wine licensee or a brewery licensee from delivering to other than a licensed premises.” COMMENT: A central warehouse is not necessarily unlicensed. A leading model for legal central warehousing is to combine the facility with a retail store, in effect just another retail outlet, but with a large “back room” from which goods can be moved to sister stores as need be.
4. OLCC: “ORS 471.404 provides that only a wholesale licensee may import alcoholic beverages into Oregon. Therefore a retailer’s warehouse may not import alcohol directly from out of state manufacturers.” COMMENT: Importation is not directly at issue in the central warehousing debate, because the state opposes internal distribution by retailers even if the importation is handled by a wholesale licensee. However, importation is on the table in Granholm-based litigation. Oregon wineries can sell directly to retail licensees. If the recently announced suit against the OLCC follows Costco’s application of Granholm, Oregon will be put to a choice of ending direct distribution by its own wineries or allowing retailers to import directly, because of a Commerce Clause prohibition against discriminating against interstate commerce relative to in-state sales by the same class of supplier. Whether or not that happens, central warehousing remains a separate issue, because large chain retailers and consumers would benefit from it even without direct distribution from out of state.
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.
