(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.

Join our mailing list:

Search Imbiblog by keyword:

Browse posts by category:

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

Category archives for “Alcohol Legislation”

California Revises On-Premises Wine & Spirits Consumer Tasting Law

October 1st, 2014

On September 30, 2014, the California Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 520, which revises the state’s laws on consumer instructional tastings at on-premises licensed retailers (i.e., bars and restaurants). Prior to the revision, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25503.5(c) permitted winegrowers, distilled spirits manufacturers, or an “authorized agent” of those licensees to conduct consumer tastings. The new legislation removes the consumer tasting provisions from Section 25503.5 (which now deals only with tastings for licensees and their employees) and creates a stand-alone consumer tasting statute in new Section 25503.57. The new law contains the same essential provisions as the old law, e.g., the event should be instructional in nature and can include information about the history, characteristics, and methods of serving the product; limited to 3 tastings per person, per day; tasting size limited to ¼ oz. for spirits and 1 oz. for wine.

The new law expands the list of licensees authorized to conduct consumer tastings to include a “winegrower, California winegrower’s agent, beer and wine importer general, beer and wine wholesaler, wine rectifier, distilled spirits manufacturer, distilled spirits manufacturer’s agent, distilled spirits importer general, distilled spirits rectifier, distilled spirits general rectifier, rectifier, out-of-state distilled spirits shipper’s certificate holder, distilled spirits wholesaler, brandy manufacturer, brandy importer, or California brandy wholesaler.” The authorized licensee may also use a “designated representative” to conduct a tasting. The law expressly excludes wholesaler/retailer combination licensees (Type 9/17/20) and limited off-sale wine retailer licensees (Type 85).

The new law also clarifies that both authorized licensees and retailers can advertise the events in advance, subject to the usual restrictions (suppliers cannot list prices or include laudatory statements about the retailer – name and address only – and cannot pay for the retailer’s ads). Only one licensee’s products can be promoted at any one time and a “designated representative” can only represent one licensee at a tasting. The new law takes effect January 1, 2015.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2014 · All Rights Reserved ·

Selling Alcohol to California Consumers Online

September 4th, 2014

Traditionally a customer wanting a bottle of alcohol in California would go to their local package or grocery store to get it or, if they were lucky enough to be in wine country, directly to a winery. In recent years, with consumers actively experimenting and looking for more variety, and with the boom in online shopping generally, consumers have a lot more options to find that elusive boutique wine, craft beer or small batch spirit brand that they have heard about and have been looking for. All of this means that consumers are turning more and more to the internet to find the alcohol that they want to serve at home. A quick Google search of internet alcohol sales in California yields more than 10 million results.

SPIRITS: Only a California Type 21 off-sale general licensee can sell a bottle of distilled spirits direct to consumer (DTC). Although a distiller can host a customer at the distillery to taste the products that are made there, a distiller cannot sell a bottle of spirits to a customer to take home.

BEER: There is a bit more leeway for beer with brewers being able to offer tastings and sell beer to customers. The CA law was revised just this year to make it very clear that a brewer can only sell its own beer to customers, and not beer made by other brewers, unless it gets a retail license. As a matter of policy, the ABC will allow a beer manufacturer to also make an online sale of its beer to a consumer. An on-premises retailer like a restaurant or a bar can also sell beer to customers to take home, and by the same ABC policy can sell online.  Off-sale retailers like grocery stores can sell beer to consumers online.

WINE: As with other alcohol, wine can be sold DTC by off-sale retailers. An on-sale retailer can also sell wine online, under ABC policy allowing online sales by retailers. A winery can also sell wine DTC, both at the winery and online, including through wine clubs. The state also offers two opportunities for the online retail sale of wine without a traditional brick and mortar store. The first of these is with a 17/20 wholesale and retail combination, or a 9/17/20 import/wholesale/retail combination. In both cases, wine can be sold online to customers and indeed can only be sold by direct mail, telephone or the internet from a location which is not open to the public. The license combination is often located right at the warehouse, enabling the licensee to easily pick and pack and ship out customer orders. The 17/20 combination allows the holder to sell directly to retailers as well as consumers and, with the addition of the type 9, the licensee can bring in wine from out-of-state and get it all the way to a consumer without passing through any other licensee’s hands. The second option is more recent and consists of a type 85 license, which gives the licensee the ability to sell wine at retail without the added wholesale or import rights. The chief distinction between the 85 and the 17/20 combination is that the 17/20 licensees have a wholesale license so they are required to make sales to retailers in addition to consumers, whereas the type 85 licensee sells only to consumers.

OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS: If you are a seller of alcohol located out-of-state, only wine can be sold DTC to California consumers and only under certain circumstances. A licensed winery in another U.S. state can get a direct shipper’s permit to sell DTC. For a licensed retailer in another state, the laws are murkier. California has a “reciprocity” statute which only permits out-of-state retail sales from states which allow a California retailer to ship to that state’s consumers. Currently, only thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow such sales. However, the concept of “reciprocity” was criticized by the Supreme Court in its 2005 decision in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, with specific reference to this California law. The law itself has not been challenged and thus the limitation remains on the books.

If you are interested in learning more about direct shipping laws in California or elsewhere, contact one of the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

Supplier-Funded Instant Rebates No Longer Permitted on Beer in California

August 7th, 2014

On July 18th, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Section 25600.3 of the Business and Professions Code, which expressly prohibits beer manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers from offering, funding, sponsoring, or furnishing any type of coupon whereby a consumer gets an instant discount on beer, cider or perry, at the time of purchase. Prohibited coupons include instantly redeemable coupons (IRCs) of all kinds, whether paper, digital or electronic. The bill also prohibits retail licensees from accepting or possessing any such coupon funded by a beer wholesaler or manufacturer, although it does not prevent a retailer from offering its own coupons as set out below.

Per the bill sponsor, beer IRCs have been targets for fraud and have created liability issues for beer suppliers, as well as creating an imbalance in the beer marketplace among major breweries and the burgeoning craft beer market. The bill received major support from MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch.

Not affected by the law are mail-in rebates, retailer-sponsored coupons, instant coupons for distilled spirits and wine (provided the coupons do not also discount beer), and instant rebates offered by beer manufacturers at the production facility or other premises owned or operated by the manufacturer. This last exception keeps the door open for small brewers licensed with a Type 23 license to offer instant rebates at brew-pubs owned and operated by the brewery.

Suppliers and retailers should be careful with all beer, cider and perry coupons as they may be affected by the new prohibition. We have put together a chart below to show what coupons are caught by the law. You should check each license that is held by the sponsor to see if the law prevents the coupon.

California IRCs  by Alcohol and ABC License Type

            

 

 

Beer Manufacturer (CA or out-of-state)

Beer and Wine Wholesaler

Beer and Wine Importer

Winegrower (if wholly owned by a Beer Manufacturer)

Winegrower (not owned by Beer Manufacturer)

Retailer

Malt beverages (incl. beer)

No

No

No

No

N/A

Yes

Cider

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Perry

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Wine/spirits

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Rebate regulations vary from state to state. For more information on coupon laws for wine, beer, and distilled spirits, contact an attorney at Strike & Techel.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

More New York Industry Guidance on Limited Availability, Brand Registration and more

June 3rd, 2014

Following our blog post on May 6 (http://strikeandtechel.com/2014/05/06/nysla-expands-suppliers-ability-to-entertain-consumers/), regarding the new advisory from New York covering supplier events, here are some more advisories recently published by New York. The advisories summarized here cover limited availability items and closeout sales, new brand registration rules, growler information for beer and cider, and the use of third party agents for consumer tastings.

Limited Availability Items – #2014-5

New York is one of a number of states around the country which continues to require its wholesalers to post prices for wine and spirits around five weeks in advance of sale. The retail posted pricing (from in-state manufacturers and wholesalers to retailers) is available to any retailer who wants to buy the products at the posted price. In the case of products with limited availability, or in the case of closeout sales with limited inventory, the SLA published an advisory in 2013 and now replaces it with this one.

A limited availability item is one where the New York manufacturer or wholesaler believes that demand will exceed supply. As an exception to the general, and strongly enforced, rule against channel pricing, limited availability items can be allocated differently between on- and off-premises retail buyers. A closeout sale occurs when the manufacturer or wholesaler intends to sell its entire remaining inventory of an older or seasonal item at a price at least 10% lower than the last posted price.

In the case of limited availability items, the SLA is switching over the whole current price posting system to create a new category for these types of items. The new system will allow a manufacturer or wholesaler to indicate how it will allocate limited availability items. The system will also allow a manufacturer or wholesaler to move items to limited availability after prices have been posted if there is an exceptional event like a high score from a trade or consumer publication or a celebrity endorsement. In the advisory, the SLA gives a number of examples of allocation methods which are permitted.

Brand Label Registration – #2014-7

In addition to federal certificate of label approval (COLA) requirements from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), New York requires brand labels to be registered with the state for almost all alcoholic beverages. Wines over 7% alcohol which have a COLA do not generally need to be registered. Many of the changes in the new advisory parallel recent TTB changes allowing a number of label alterations without requiring a new COLA.

Brand labels must contain the brand or trade name, the class and type of alcoholic beverage, the net contents and other labeling information required for a COLA. If there is any change to the brand name, the flavor description, age or geographic appellation, or if qualifiers like “kosher” or “organic” are added to a label, a new registration must be obtained. If the alcoholic content of a brand registered product changes more than 1.5%, or 0.5% in the case of a cider or a “wine product,” a new registration must be obtained. Unlike wine, “wine products” can be sold in grocery stores if they meet the state-specific definition, which requires things like carbonation and added flavoring materials.  Registrations are filed by the brand owner, if they are a New York licensee, or otherwise by the New York wholesaler appointed by the brand owner to post prices for and sell the product.

Brand label registrations are valid for a set calendar year depending on the type of alcoholic beverage. Current registrations will remain in effect until they expire and will then be transitioned to the new schedule. There will be additional use-up periods allowed for non-compliant products.

Private labels owned by retailers who sell them exclusively are exempt from price posting requirements. The labels do not have to contain the retailer’s name, but the brand name must belong to the retailer or the retailer must have the legal right to use the name. A retailer can license the brand name from another entity but cannot license a brand name belonging to a manufacturer or wholesaler. The use of terms like “exclusively bottled for” or “exclusive to” cannot be used to try and create a private brand label for a retailer.

Growlers – #2014-11

The advisory covers the sale of beer and cider in growlers by off premise retailers authorized to sell those beverages and confirms that liquor and wine cannot be sold in growlers in New York. In the case of beer and cider, either the consumer can provide the container or the retailer can. Due to local open container laws, retailers serving growlers should provide sealed containers where applicable.

Authorized Agents for Tastings and Bottle Sales – #2014-13

Certain New York licensees, and certain out-of-state suppliers with supplier marketing permits, are allowed to provide tastings in accordance with an advisory published in July 2013. This new advisory confirms that the licensee or supplier can use another manufacturer or wholesaler licensee as its agent for such a tasting. The only exception is that a beer wholesaler is not allowed to act as an agent for a brewer.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2014 · All Rights Reserved ·

Tennessee House of Representatives Overwhelmingly Passes Wine in Grocery Stores Bill

February 24th, 2014

Last Thursday, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed House Bill 610 by a vote of 71-15, voting to allow the issue of the sale of wine in grocery stores to be submitted to voters in local referendums, and creating a permit for the sale of wine by grocery stores. On January 30, the Senate had approved Senate Bill 837 by a vote of 23-8. The Bill will now be returned to the Senate to review the remaining differences between the two bills, before it goes to the Governor for signature. If signed by the Governor, it is anticipated that the issue could be on local November ballots for consumers to weigh in on local approval of grocery store wine sales.

One of the key differences between the two bills was fixed by the House in its new version, with the reduction of minimum size for grocery and convenience stores from 2,000 to 1,200 square feet, allowing about 500 more convenience stores to qualify. The House also reduced the fee for a grocery store wine license to $1,250 from $2,000, bringing it closer to the $850 in the Senate Bill. Already, following the House vote, Sen. Bill Ketron, the Republican who sponsored the Senate Bill, indicated to reporters that he planned to accept the House version and could ask for a vote as soon as March 3.

Even if approved, wine sales won’t be possible in grocery locations until summer 2016 due to an agreement reached with lobbies for liquor stores and wholesalers that had opposed the proposals. In another concession to liquor stores, both bills open up opportunities for traditional liquor stores to sell items other than alcohol and to do so as soon as this summer, two years before any grocery store wine sales could begin. Liquor stores are currently allowed to sell only wine and distilled spirits and a few minor accessories like corkscrews. Additionally, grocery stores would be subject to a minimum 20% markup on wines sold, in an attempt to address volume discounting, and would be prevented from offering combined deals of wine and other grocery items. To encourage wholesaler support, the Senate Bill allows for wholesalers to be located outside the four major cities in the state which they are currently restricted to, and the House Bill would extend that even further to any county which currently permits bars or liquor stores to operate. Blue laws, preventing Sunday sales of alcohol, will not be affected by any new legislation, and such sales will continue to be prohibited.

The debate in Tennessee has been ongoing since 2006. It is not the only state which has been discussing this issue as we previously blogged here. Currently, thirty-five states do not restrict the sale of wine in grocery stores. No state has managed to pass legislation changing the status quo since Iowa permitted grocery store sales in 1985. Factions in New York, now the second largest wine-producing state by volume, have attempted to pass wine in grocery store bills on numerous occasions, including a significant push in 2011. The Kansas House Commerce, Labor and Economic Development Committee held a hearing Wednesday on House Bill 2556 which would allow the sale of full strength beer and wine in grocery stores, inducing vigorous debate. A bill introduced to the Oklahoma Legislature this month, which would permit wine to be sold in grocery stores and nonalcoholic beverages and refrigerated beer and wine to be sold in liquor stores, died in Committee. And last month, a federal appeals court in Kentucky ruled that the state’s ban on grocery store sales of wine and liquor was constitutional. The court said that the state had every right to ban such sales, “just as a parent can reduce a child’s access to liquor.” The grocers who filed the original challenge to the law are reviewing rehearing and appeal options now.

If you have any questions about where wine can be sold, contact one of the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2014 · All Rights Reserved ·

Clarifications from the ABC on Sweepstakes and Contests in California

October 17th, 2013

On June 13, 2013, guests attending ShipCompliant’s “Direct 2013” conference heard from Matthew Botting, General Counsel to the California ABC, on supplier participation in sweepstakes and contests under California’s new law.  We’ve previously blogged about the new law here and here.

California Code of Regulations Title 4, Section 106 (“Rule 106”) has always allowed suppliers to “sponsor” a contest, meaning suppliers could give money or otherwise participate when the contest was organized by “bona fide amateur or professional organizations.”  Previously, the privilege was limited.  Now, the privileges are broader:  suppliers (including wineries) can now “conduct” a contest under recently enacted Business and Professions Code Section 25600.1, and conduct or sponsor a sweepstakes under 25600.2.  Mr. Botting discussed the different available privileges and their limitations:

*   “Conduct” means the promotion is managed and organized by the supplier.
*   “Sponsor” means it is someone else’s sweepstakes or contest and the supplier is providing a prize or other sponsorship of the promotion.
*    For the time being, suppliers can only sponsor a contest in accordance with the existing Rule 106, which means sponsorship is limited to a contest conducted by bona fide amateur or professional organizations.
*    Sponsoring a sweepstakes and conducting a sweepstakes or contest is now covered by Business and Professions Code Section 25600.1 and 25600.2.  Sweepstakes or contests cannot require a visit to a licensed premises of any kind, so there must be an alternate method of entry (“AMOE”) if entry forms are available at a licensee.
*     Sweepstakes and contests cannot be conducted on retail premises (e.g., a grocery store, liquor store, bar or restaurant).  A “retail premise” includes some locations you might not think of, such as: an unlicensed premises if a licensed caterer is present, or at an event held by a nonprofit under a one-day permit. The ABC considers events held with a caterer’s license or a nonprofit one-day permit to occur “at the premises of a retail licensee,” and therefore a supplier may only provide a means of entry at either of these types of events.
*     While suppliers may provide a means of entry for the contest or sweepstakes, the contest or sweepstakes may not be conducted at a winery or brewery’s duplicate tasting room.
*     A contest or sweepstakes can only be advertised at a retailer if it is advertised at a minimum of three different retailers, and winners shouldn’t be picked at a licensed retail event nor in a tasting room.

The full presentation by Mr. Botting can be seen here (starting at the 5:00 minute mark).

Before conducting or sponsoring any contest or sweepstakes, be sure to consult the relevant laws, Business & Professions Code Sections 25600.1, 25600.2, and, if applicable, Rule 106 (regarding contests), and pay particular attention to whether the supplier involved holds a license that allows it to participate.

Contact one of the attorneys at Strike & Techel if you have questions about contests and sweepstakes in California or other states.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

California On Sale General Public Premises (Type 48) Licensees Must Post Human Trafficking Notification

September 24th, 2013

To raise awareness and provide resources to potential victims of human trafficking, California Civil Code Section 52.6 now mandates that, as of April 1, 2013, all On Sale General Public Premises (Type 48) retail licensees, along with certain other types of businesses, must post a notice about human trafficking.  The United States Department of State estimates that 14,500-17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States each year, with California as one of the country’s top four destination states.

The notice must be posted in a conspicuous place (near the public entrance or in clear view of the public and employees), measure at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches, and the following message must appear in at least size 16 font:

“If you or someone you know is being forced to engage in any activity and cannot leave — whether it is commercial sex, housework, farm work, construction, factory, retail, or restaurant work, or any other activity — call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center at 1-888-373-7888 or the California Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) at 1-888-KEY-2-FRE(EDOM) or 1-888-539-2373 to access help and services. Victims of slavery and human trafficking are protected under United States and California law.

The hotlines are:

Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Toll-free.
Operated by nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.
Anonymous and confidential.
Accessible in more than 160 languages.
Able to provide help, referral to services, training, and general information.”

This notice must be in English and Spanish, and a model notice is available here. Depending on the county, the notice may also be required in another language.  A list of those counties is available here.

For more information on this posting requirement, call the Victim Services Unit at the California Attorney General’s Office toll free: (877) 433-9069.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

California Senate Bill Could Extend the Last Call for Alcohol

March 20th, 2013

On March 11th, Senator Mark Leno introduced Senate Bill 635 which would allow California businesses to serve alcohol between the hours of 2 and 4 am. These extended hours would apply solely to on-sale premises such as restaurants, entertainment venues and nightclubs, and not to off-sale premises such as liquor stores or gas stations. SB 635 would allow California cities to join the ranks of other major U.S. cities such as New York City, Las Vegas, Chicago, Miami and Washington D.C., as well as numerous international cities and countries which permit late or continuous beverage service. At least nine other states have similar legislation in place.

Supporters of the bill argue the extended hours will increase tourism, tax revenue and jobs, and provide relief to law enforcement agencies and public transportation systems currently burdened by uniform closing times. Critics cite noise and various other public safety concerns that may arise from an additional two hours of boozing.

If SB 635 passes, cities and counties that want to extend their hours will be required to apply to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) for approval.  Under the bill, the ABC is required to conduct a “thorough investigation into whether the additional hours would serve the public convenience or necessity.” Similar to the process of obtaining an alcoholic beverage license, the city or county would be required to notify residents, law enforcement agencies and other interested parties of their application. Interested parties would then have a 30-day period from the date of notice to file protests. The ABC would reject protests it deems unreasonable.  For those with protests deemed acceptable, the ABC would provide an opportunity to address their concerns in a hearing.

Even if the bill becomes law, our experience with “public convenience or necessity” determinations and neighbor protests tends to suggest an uphill battle for many licensees who would like to obtain a 4 a.m. closing time. We will see how the bill fairs in policy committee hearings this spring.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

New Rules for Party Buses

January 3rd, 2013

Assembly Bill 45 became law January 1, 2013, and closes a loophole that held limousine operators, but not charter buses, responsible for underage drinking. The law requires chaperones and ID checks on party buses that carry both alcohol and underage passengers.

The law is also known as “the Studebaker Law,” named after Brett Studebaker, of Burlingame, who died in 2010 when he was 19 years old. Studebaker died in a collision on Highway 101 near San Mateo on his way home from San Francisco, when  his car crashed into a barrier and then into another car. He had been drinking for several hours on a party bus, after which he was attempting to drive himself and another man home when the crash occurred. The passenger sustained serious injuries, but survived. Studebaker’s blood alcohol level was reportedly more than three times the legal limit for drivers over the age of 21.

Another incident which may have played a part in getting the bill signed occurred last summer and involved a party bus and a physical altercation between two young women, one of whom was underage. The bus was traveling from a concert at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View to Santa Cruz on Highway 17. During the fight, the women fell out of the bus, which was traveling at 45 mph, and one of the women was run over and died.

The new law will require party bus companies to ask customers during booking whether there will be any passengers under 21 years of age and if there will be alcohol served. If so, the customer must designate a chaperone who is at least 25 years old to be present throughout the trip. The chaperone is responsible for making sure the underage passengers aren’t drinking. If at any time a minor is found drinking alcohol, the chaperone must inform the bus driver, and the trip must be terminated. The chaperone is then responsible for making sure the minors that were drinking alcohol get home or safely into the care of their parents.

The law also holds drivers accountable for verifying the age of passengers they suspect to be under 21. If there are underage passengers and there isn’t supposed to be alcohol onboard, the driver must check for alcohol if it is suspected. If the driver finds alcohol, then the trip must be terminated unless the alcohol is locked under the bus.

If party bus companies do not comply with the new law, they could face up to $2,000 in fines and their permits may be suspended for up to 30 days or revoked. Bus drivers and chaperones could face misdemeanor charges for noncompliance.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

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.

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