(IMBIBE+BLOG)

At Strike & Techel, we don’t just write legal briefs. Check out our blog about the ins and outs of alcohol beverage law.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.

Category archives for “laws and regulations governing alcoholic beverages”

Taking Advantage of the California Sweepstakes and Contests Laws

May 14th, 2013

As most alcohol suppliers are now aware, California added two new statutes this year permitting alcohol suppliers to conduct contests and sweepstakes that are open to California residents. California had long been the only U.S. state that prohibited alcohol suppliers from including its residents in these kinds of promotions, but that changed in January. We previously blogged about these new laws here. The new laws offer suppliers new avenues to conduct promotions in California but it’s important to note that only specifically listed types of supplier licensees are authorized to conduct contests and sweepstakes in California. Authorized licensees are: winegrower (Type 2 License), beer and wine importer general (Type 10 License), beer manufacturer (Type 1 License), out-of-state beer manufacturer certificate holder (Type 26 License), distilled spirits manufacturer (Type 4 License), distilled spirits manufacturer’s agent (Type 5 License), distilled spirits importer general (Type 13 License), distilled spirits general rectifier (Type 24 License), rectifier (Type 7 License), out-of-state distilled spirits shipper’s certificate holder (Type 28 License), brandy manufacturer (Type 3 License), and brandy importer (Type 11 License).

The statutes specifically exclude wholesalers (Type 17 and 18 Licenses) and retailers of all types. They also exclude beer and wine importer general (Type 10 License) and distilled spirits importer general (Type 13 License) licensees that hold “only a wholesaler’s or retailer’s license as an additional license.” So, although the laws include Type 10 and Type 13 importers, those licensees would be excluded if they also hold a wholesaler’s license and no other supplier license. Accordingly, holders of the popular 9/17/20 license combination, and holders of 10/17 and 13/18 combinations are not eligible to conduct contests or sweepstakes under the new provisions. The exception to this would be if they hold another specifically included license type, such as a winegrower’s license.

We received a number of calls from suppliers unclear on whether they are included in the new laws so we hope this post helps to clarify. If you have any questions about the contest/sweepstakes laws or other promotional activities, in California or elsewhere, contact an attorney at Strike & Techel.

TTB Allows Beer Returns Based on Freshness Dating

December 19th, 2012

In response a request from industry members, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) recently issued Ruling 2012-4, which addresses whether brewers may require wholesalers to pull beer from retailers that is past its freshness date and replace it with fresh beer. Many beers now include freshness dates, and some brewers ask distributors to remove beer from the retail market that is past its freshness date. Brewers argue that this ensures that consumers get fresh product, but the practice is arguably at odds with laws prohibiting consignment sales.

The FAA act makes it unlawful for industry members, including beer producers, importers, and wholesalers, to sell, offer for sale, or contract to sell to any retailer on consignment, under conditional sale, with the privilege of return, or on any basis otherwise than a bona fide sale. See 27 U.S.C. § 205(d). There are limited exceptions to this prohibition, but only for those “ordinary and usual commercial reasons” included in 27 C.F.R. §§ 11.32 – 39. The limited exceptions when an industry member may accept a return include: a) defective product, b) shipment error, c) change in law preventing the sale of a product, d) termination of the buyer’s business or franchise, e) change in product from that held in inventory, and f) possible spoilage of product during the off-season of a seasonal retailer.

None of the exceptions to the consignment sales law clearly applies to returns based on freshness dating, thus prompting the TTB’s Ruling. The Ruling makes clear that under certain conditions, returns based on freshness dating are permitted under the exception for “defective products” found in 27 C.F.R. § 11.32. Those conditions are as follows:

- The brewer has policies and procedures in place that specify the date after which the retailer must pull the product;

- The brewer’s freshness return/exchange policies and procedures are readily verifiable and consistently followed by the brewer;

- The container has identifying markings that correspond with this date; and

- The malt beverage product pulled by the retailer may not re-enter the retail marketplace.

Finally, the TTB noted that wholesalers may not force retailers to overstock the wholesaler’s products under the pretext that the retailer may exchange product based on the freshness date, and that such practices would violate consignment sale and tied-house laws.

Contact one of the attorneys at Strike & Techel if you have any questions about TTB rules and regulations.

New North Carolina Beer Franchise Act Now Effective

June 5th, 2012

Revisions to the North Carolina malt beverages franchise act became effective yesterday when the Governor signed Senate Bill 745. Last year’s similar bill was stalled after brewers took issues with some of the terms. Senate Bill 745 is a compromise bill that passed the legislature with wide margins. Among the changes, the new law explicitly states that the meaning of “good cause” for termination purposes cannot be modified from the definition set forth in North Carolina law; however, there is a provision in the law that allows brewers that obtain self-distribution approval from the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission to terminate a wholesaler franchise relationship without good cause if “fair market value for the distribution rights for the affected brand” is paid to the wholesaler. Fair market value is determined not as an average price, but must be “highest dollar amount at which a seller would be willing to sell and a buyer willing to buy.” See Senate Bill 745, § 18B-1305(a1). The bill also revises what constitutes good cause, what factors a supplier may consider when approving an assignment, transfer or merger of a wholesaler, treatment of brand extensions, and prohibited acts by suppliers.

The new law also introduces a mandatory mediation requirement. If a dispute arises among a supplier and a wholesaler that is likely to lead to litigation, then the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission can require the parties to submit to mediation in an effort to resolve the dispute. This requirement may arise solely by the initiative of the Commission, or either party to the dispute may request that the Commission mandate the mediation. See Senate Bill 745, § 18B-1309. This new provision makes North Carolina one of the few states with laws on mediation for resolution of conflicts between beer suppliers and wholesalers. California and Maryland are the only other two states that discuss mediation in their beer franchise acts. See Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 25000.2; Md. Code Ann. § 21-103.

It remains imperative for suppliers to review a state’s laws and regulations when entering into a distribution agreement and also to give oneself enough time for review and negotiation of the agreement, especially in light of the fact that states like North Carolina are further restricting the ability of suppliers and wholesalers to contract around franchise act laws. For more information about distribution agreements and franchise acts, please see our prior post available here or feel free to contact an attorney at Strike & Techel.

UPDATE: New Jersey Senate Passes Direct Shipping Bill

December 19th, 2011

Updating our post of late last week, the New Jersey Senate last Thursday voted 23 to 13 in favor of Bill S-3172, permitting wineries to ship directly to New Jersey consumers. Now that it has passed the Senate, the New Jersey Assembly has to vote on the bill by January 9, 2012, the last day of the legislative session. Under the bill, New Jersey Farm Wineries, New Jersey Plenary Wineries that produce 250,000 gallons or less of wine a year, and out-of-state wineries that produce 250,000 gallons of wine or less each year and that obtain an out-of-state shipping license would be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine per year to any New Jersey consumer. If passed, New Jersey would become the 39^th state to allow direct shipping. Check back in early 2012 for an update!

TTB Bonded Wine Premises Audits

July 29th, 2011

Nobody hopes for an audit, but like cold cloudy summers in San Francisco, they’re bound to happen. Ideally, if you’re selected for an audit by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”), you will have already been following the federal requirements. To aid in compliance, last March the TTB issued a tutorial about the common issues found during TTB audits, which is available here. As the ramp up to harvest begins, this is a good resource to circle back with to ensure compliance. Within the tutorial the TTB listed the most common compliance issues by area, and within that by frequency of occurrence. Further, they provided helpful tips on how to avoid problems in those areas. The issues most frequently seen by the TTB’s Tax Audit Division are:

Records:

General record keeping;

Transfer in bond record;

Tax paid removal records; and

Export documentations.

Inventory:

Inventory timing, records and signature;

Inventory losses and loss limits; and

Records of bottled or packed wine.

Reporting and Tax Payment:

Timely filing the Report of Wine Premises Operations and correctly completing the form;

Calculating and paying tax on wine;

Filing claims for wine or spirits lost or destroyed while in bond;

Tax payment and filing TTB F5000.24 Excise Tax Returns; and

Signature authority.

Basic Permit, Registration and Bond:

Filing amended applications to report changes; and

Maintaining adequate bond coverage.

If you would like assistance with a TTB audit or help with TTB compliance matters, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

Spirits Tastings Approved In Tennessee

June 27th, 2011

Earlier this month, Tennessee became the 35th state to allow spirits tastings, with the passage of Senate Bill 1224, which will permit restaurants, bars, and liquor stores to offer limited alcohol sampling. The bill, which was signed into law on June 10thand is codified at Tennessee Code Annotated Section 57-3-404(h)(2), will allow spirits retailers to conduct tastings for “sales, education, and promotional purposes.” Similar to tasting laws in most other states, spirits wholesalers may not take part in the events, and are specifically precluded from directly or indirectly providing any “products, funding, labor, support or reimbursements to a retailer.” The Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission will be establishing rules specifying how tastings must be conducted.

Tennessee is among a growing list of states that have authorized limited tastings since 2009, joining California, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Federal Legislative Update

March 22nd, 2011

In the past few weeks there has been a significant amount of new legislation relating to the alcoholic beverage industry introduced on both the state and federal level. The increased legislative efforts are interesting in light of the fact that in March 1933, 78-years ago, the end of Prohibition was kicked off when Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to pass “The Beer Act,” which was eventually passed on April 7, 1933. The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified nearly eight months later on December 5, 1933. A re-cap of the two most high-profile pieces of federal proposed legislation is below. Later this week we’ll take a look at key pieces of state proposed legislation.

S. 534 – The Brewer’s Employment and Excise Tax Relief Act of 2011, or BEER Act as it is popular referred to, was introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) on March 9, 2011. As of today, the Bill has twenty-three cosponsors. The bipartisan bill would reduce the excise tax paid by small brewers from $7.00 to $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels produced each year. Small breweries would then pay $16 per barrel for production above 60,000 and up to two million barrels. Currently, all brewers regardless of size pay $18 per barrel for all production above 60,000 barrels. The Bill would also revise the current definition of “small breweries” from those that produce less than two million barrels per year to those that produce less than six million.

H.R. 1161– Just over a week after S. 534 was introduced, the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011 was introduced by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on March 17, 2011. As of today, the Bill has eight cosponsors. The Bill is a re-introduction of H.R. 5034, which was hotly contested last year and eventually abandoned. The Bill, depending on which of the three-tiers one is standing in or closest to, is either about protecting states’ rights to regulate alcohol or about allowing Commerce Clause violations to protect alcohol distributor’s interests. As 2011 progresses we are sure to see the heated debate unfold once again.

Winery Licensing in California

March 3rd, 2011

The typical license for a winery in California is a Type 02 Winegrower license, but many businesses interested more in marketing wine, or having wine custom crushed to their specifications, instead of actually producing the wine on a bonded wine premises, obtain a combination Type 17/20 license instead. The Type 17 license is a wine and beer wholesaler license, and the type 20 is a retail license for the sale of wine and beer for consumption off the licensed premises. When the licenses are held together, they allow the sale to retailers and consumers of wine only. The combination license does not allow the holder to produce wine. Significantly, California law was changed in 2009 to permit these 17/20 license holders (sometimes called “virtual wineries”) to donate their wines to non-profit organizations. This privilege, previously reserved to licensed producers and importers, enables virtual wineries to participate in wine tastings and other events held by non-profit organizations. The 17/20 license structure and abundance of wineries that do custom crush production in California have made it relatively easy for virtual wineries to succeed and, as a result, we have seen tremendous increases in the 17/20 license model over the last several years.

Still No Certiorari Decision from the Supreme Court on Wine Country Gift Baskets.com Case

February 28th, 2011

The pins and needles many in the alcoholic beverage industry were on this morning remain, as the Supreme Court’s orders list issued this morningwas silent on the certiorari decision for Wine Country Gift Baskets.com, et.al., v. John T. Steen, Jr., et.al.Cases are typically distributed among the Supreme Court Justices on Fridays for their conferences, during which they discuss whether or not to grant certiorari. Orders are then typically issued the following Monday. If a case that goes to conference on a Friday is not among the order list published on the following Monday, it usually means the case is being discussed among the Justices, with a few but not a majority, arguing for the grant of certiorari. However, once a case has gone to conference more than once without a subsequent order being issued, it tends to mean that the votes for the certiorari grant are not and will not be there. This is now the second time Wine County Gift Baskets.com, et.al., v. John T. Steen, Jr., et.al. has gone to conference (first on February 18, 2011 and second on February 25, 2011) and not been included in the following Monday’s orders. Thus, it is unlikely that the case will be granted certiorari, although not impossible. If the case is denied certiorari, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will stand. For a summary of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, see our prior post here.

Have Wine, Will Travel

February 25th, 2011

It is called everything from the bombastic “corkage” to the everyperson “BYOB,” but it means the same across all fifty states and beyond: bringing ones own bottle of alcohol to a restaurant for consumption with ones meal. Not every state allows the practice, but Virginia is on the brink of joining the list of states where brown-bagging is permissible. On February 8^th, the Virginia Senate passed SB 1292 (27-Y, 13-N) and the bill passed the House on February 22^nd (78-Y, 18-N), leaving only Governor Robert McDonnell’s signature to make it official. The bill was introduced by Republican state Senator Jeffrey McWaters, who argued passage of SB 1292 would help boost Virginia’s restaurant and wine industries. SB 1292 will add Section 16 to § 4.1-201(A) of the Code of Virginia, thereby allowing licensed restaurants to permit customers to consume legally acquired wine on a restaurant premises and allowing the restaurant to charge a corkage fee if desired.

Each state that allows BYOB has its own unique set of regulations. Virginia’s neighbor to the South, North Carolina, has a “brown-bagging” permit, which allows customers in permitted establishments to bring and consume on the premises “up to eight liters of fortified wine or spirituous liquor, or eight liters of the two combined.” Restaurants, hotels and community theaters are only allowed such permits if they are located in a county where the sale of mixed beverages has not been approved. Eight liters of fortified wine, which in North Carolina is defined as 16-24% alcohol by volume, or distilled spirits, may seem like an exorbitant amount of alcohol. However, unlike Virginia’s SB 1292, North Carolina’s law is not about enjoying a glass of ones own wine with dinner, but rather about consuming a gin and tonic at ones local haunt when such establishment is not allowed by law to sell gin. Attending “liquor locker” provisions in North Carolina allow patrons to store their brown-bagged alcohol in individual lockers at licensed facilities, so that they can drain their provisions over time. Traditional bottle opening fees do not apply in such situations, rather the restaurant makes money selling the mixer used by the patron, commonly referred to as a “set-up.”

The North Carolina arrangement would be defined as an illegal “bottle club” in California. California only allows people to bring their own alcohol to a licensed premises, and one can only bring alcohol that could have been sold by the licensee at the establishment. So if a restaurant only sells beer and wine, one cannot bring in vodka. Also, in California any unfinished portion of the BYOB must be left at the restaurant, so if you bring a bottle of expensive wine to a restaurant, bring enough friends to drink it all!

As we head into the weekend, we’ll leave you to ponder these burning questions: Is it counterintuitive for California to forbid people from bringing wine to restaurants that do not serve it, but permit patrons to bring wine to restaurants with the exact same bottle available for sale on their wine list? Also, who pays more in BYOB alcohol costs—North Carolina patrons bringing in eight liters of distilled spirits or New York patrons (blind item) dining at a well known restaurant with a $90 corkage fee?

(IMBIBE+BLOG)

Subscribe to our RSS feed:

Search Imbiblog by keyword:

Browse posts by category:

Category archives for “laws and regulations governing alcoholic beverages”