(IMBIBE+BLOG)

At long last, as of May 1, 2012, applications for Out-of-State Winery licenses are being accepted in New Jersey, which will permit out-of-state wineries to ship wine directly to New Jersey consumers.  As discussed in earlier posts, including here, New Jersey’s law was passed early in 2012, and makes New Jersey the 39^th state to allow winery direct shipping.  The law permits wineries producing no more than 250,000 gallons of wine per year to ship wine directly to consumers in the state.  License holders may ship no more than 12 cases of wine each year per consumer for personal use.  The license also includes limited privileges for holders to sell wine directly to retailers, and for tasting room privileges within New Jersey.

No regulations were promulgated to go along with the direct shipping statute, but earlier this week, the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control released instructions and application forms for Out-of-State Winery licenses that provide more information about direct shipping, and which can be found here.  First, the Out-of-State Winery license will be the most expensive direct shipping license in the county, with tiered pricing depending on the amount of wine produced, but costing $938 annually for wineries producing between 50,000 and 250,000 each year.   Additionally, the instructions clarify that wine shipped must be manufactured by the Out-of-State Winery license holder.  Other details of interest to potential applicants include: a) all applicants must register with the Secretary of state; b) a bond is required; c) all applicants must register with the Division of Taxation; and d) all brands must be registered before they can be shipped into the state. Each of these requirements comes with additional fees, so wineries should make sure the anticipated sales volumes warrant the costs of getting set-up.

Please feel free to contact one of our attorneys if you are interested in more information about direct winery shipping in New Jersey.

Late Monday night, on the last day of New Jersey’s legislative session, the state Assembly voted 51-18-4 in favor of Bill A-4336, New Jersey’s wine direct shipping bill.  The companion bill, S-3172, passed the New Jersey Senate last month, and now only the governor’s approval stands in the way of New Jersey becoming the 39^th state to allow some form of direct shipping.  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 will be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine per year to any New Jersey consumer.  If the bill is signed by New Jersey Governor Christie as expected, the law will go into effect in May, 2012.  To see our earlier posts on this topic, check here and here.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2012 · All Rights Reserved ·

On January 1, 2012, California Business and Professions Code Section 23394.7 goes into effect, which aims to regulate alcohol sales at self-checkout terminals.  The controversial law provides that “no privileges under an off-sale license shall be exercised by the licensee at any customer-operated checkout stand located on the licensee’s physical premises.”  The law has been opposed since its inception by grocery stores with self-checkout and has been supported by retail clerks labor unions, among other entities.

The California Alcoholic Beverage Control issued an Industry Advisory to explain the new law last week, and the California Grocers Association (“CGA”) just filed a petition contesting the terms of the Advisory.  For example, the Industry Advisory provides in part, “it is clear that ‘customer-operated checkout stand’ means a checkout stand or station that is designated for operation by the customer.”  In its petition in the California Third District Court of Appeal, the CGA argues that the ABC overstepped its regulatory authority by defining one of the law’s key provisions in the Advisory, rather than going through the formal rule-making process required by the California Administrative Procedure Act.  The CGA also argues that the definition put forth by the ABC is inconsistent with the statute.  The CGA has asked that the Advisory be set aside, or that its effect at least be delayed until the issue has been resolved.  Check back for updates!

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

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!

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

The New Jersey Senate will vote on a direct shipping bill this Thursday, December 15, 2011, called S-3172 in its current form.  If passed into law, 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.   With passage of the bill, New Jersey would join the 38 states that currently allow direct wine shipping to consumers in some form, including Maryland and New Mexico as of earlier this year.  However, the “capacity cap” for out-of-state wineries of 250,000 gallons per year remains a point of contention, as that limit would preclude the majority of California wineries from shipping to New Jersey consumers.  Stay tuned to find out how the New Jersey Senate votes!

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

If you didn’t partake in the toast that New York wineries made at the end of July when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed bill S4143A into law, perhaps now is the time. The bill, known as the Fine Winery Bill, made a number of revisions to the state’s alcoholic beverage code regarding wineries and farm wineries. A number of the revisions to the law were originally suggested by the industry member group the New York State Grape Task Force in a 2008 report to the commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets. Below is a brief outline of the legal changes:

Branch Offices

The licensing process for up to five branch offices of a farm winery was simplified through the elimination of separate licenses for each branch. Perhaps more importantly, the privileges of the branch offices now mirror those of the farm winery, as opposed to those of an off-premise retailer as was previously the case.

Custom Crush

Farm wineries also gained the legal authority to perform custom crush services. The individual requesting a custom crush must be present during the entire production process and purchase the final wine product.

Charitable Events

Wineries can now obtain an annual permit allowing them to participate in events sponsored by charitable organizations. Previously, participation in a maximum of five events was allowed and the licensing process was more arduous.

Other Events & Tastings

Wineries may now charge for use of their premises and for wine tastings.

Reporting

Farm wineries can now maintain interstate shipping reports on their premises and present them when requested by the State Liquor Authority as opposed to filing those reports semiannually with the State Liquor Authority, thereby reducing reporting expenses.

Elimination of Redundant Licensing

Farm wineries that produce less than 1,500 gallons of wine annually are no longer required to apply for a micro-winery license in addition to their farm winery license.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010-2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

California beer fans are sure to toast the passage of AB1014, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on August 1^st. The bill, presented by Assemblymen Fletcher (R) and Chesbro (D), amends California’s Health and Safety Code to exempt beer manufacturers’ beer tasting areas from the strict health and sanitation codes applied to food service locations. Beer manufacturers include those holding a beer manufacturer’s license, an out-of-state beer manufacturer’s certificate, or a beer and wine importer’s general license. Wine tasting rooms have been exempt from such provisions for years. The health and sanitation codes are lengthy and expensive to comply with; thus, compliance costs typically outweighed the benefit of a beer tasting room for many brewers, especially small craft operations. Compliance with the new exemption requires that the only foods served on the premises are crackers and pretzels. Additionally, only beer and “prepackaged nonpotentially hazardous beverages” may be offered. A copy of the revised Section 113789 of California’s Health and Safety code is available here.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010-2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

On Monday Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 39 banning the production, importation, and sale of beer to which caffeine as a separate ingredient has been directly added. Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat from the San Fernando Valley, introduced the Bill last December. In order to enforce the prohibition, licensees may be required by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to provide product formulas. All formulas provided will be considered confidential trade secrets and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The new law can be found in Section 25622 of California’s Business and Professions Code. The law does not prohibit beers where caffeine is a part of the brewing process itself, such as a coffee porter. It is aimed instead at the Progressive Adult Beverages (PABs) (also commonly referred to as Ready to Drinks (RTDs) and Flavored Alcoholic Beverages (FABs)) that have been in the news since last fall. See our prior coverage here, here, here, and here. This puts California in line with states like New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Michigan, Kansas, and Utah, which have also banned such beverages.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010-2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

The Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”) was passed into law early in 2011, and will affect several areas within the alcohol beverage industry.   The FSMA is meant to implement a prevention-based model for food safety, and places new requirements on the FDA, food facilities, and importers.  Most new guidelines and requirements under the FSMA will not go into effect until at least the middle of 2012, but given the comprehensive nature of the Act, those affected will likely want to begin preparing for the changes in the near future.

The FSMA and related FDA laws include alcohol in the definition of “food,” and the Act applies to “Food Facilities.”  A Food Facility includes any “factory, warehouse, or establishment (including a factory, warehouse, or establishment of an importer) that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food,” not including restaurants and other retail food establishments.  Accordingly, many in the alcohol industry stand to be affected by the FSMA, including wineries, breweries, distilled spirits plants, and alcohol beverage distributors, importers, warehouses, and wholesalers.

The first major requirement placed on Food Facilities is a requirement to implement written preventative control plans, including: (1) evaluating the hazards that could affect food safety, (2) specifying what preventive steps, or controls, will be put in place to significantly minimize or prevent the hazards, (3) specifying how the facility will monitor these controls to ensure they are working, (4) maintaining routine records of the monitoring, and (5) specifying what actions the facility will take to correct problems that arise.  The final rule implementing this requirement is due 18 months after enactment of the FSMA, which falls in July 2012.  Wineries should also be aware that the FDA must implement new mandatory produce standards by early 2013.

Food importers also have new responsibilities under the FSMA.  Most notably, importers will have a responsibility to verify that their foreign suppliers have adequate food safety controls in place.  The final regulation detailing this provision is due in January 2012.  The Act also establishes a program by which third parties can become accredited to certify that foreign foods comply with U.S. food safety standards.  This system will be established by early 2013.  Other provisions that may affect importers include: a) establishment of a voluntary qualified importer program, which will enable expedited review and entry of foods by those importers; and b) increased FDA authority to deny entry of imported food.

Other key provisions of the FSMA include: increased frequency of inspections of high risk facilities; new standards imposed on FDA for food-testing laboratories; the FDA will have more authority to make mandatory recalls, detain products, and revoke registrations; a model for improved product tracing capabilities; additional record-keeping requirements for high risk foods; and, a plan to strengthen partnerships between FDA and state and foreign agencies.

Look for specific guidelines late this year or early in 2012.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010-2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued a press release on Friday, June 3^rd advising that it has entered into agreements with FedEx and UPS to halt the shipment of wine by out of state retailers to Texas consumers.

The direct shipping situation in Texas has been in a state of flux for years following the seminal Granholm v. Heald decision, which opened up many states to direct shipment of wine by wineries in 2005. Following Granholm, plaintiffs in a number of states have filed lawsuits to determine the scope of the court’s ruling, particularly whether it applied to retailers or only wineries.

Lawsuits filed in Texas alleged that Texas laws preventing direct to consumer sales by out of state retailers violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution because retailers within Texas were permitted to make such shipments. The cases were decided last year on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Texas was not required to allow out of state retailers to ship wine to Texas consumers, but could continue to permit in-state retailers to do so.

Following the Court of Appeals’ ruling, the TABC began notifying retailers that shipments to consumers in Texas were not legal. More recently, the TABC has provided FedEx and UPS with the names of out of state retailers who have recently shipped wine to Texas consumers (TABC has not said how it came to identify such retailers.) FedEx and UPS in turn have agreed to notify the listed retailers that such shipments violate the retailers’ shipping agreements with the companies and may lead the shippers to refuse to ship packages for the involved retailers. For its part, TABC says it will contact the retailers directly and may also contact the alcoholic beverage control agencies in the retailers’ home states in cases where the retailers fail to comply with the TABC’s requests.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010-2011 · All Rights Reserved ·