(IMBIBE+BLOG)

We’ve been getting lots of inquiries about the privileges and limitations of the new limited off-sale license offered by the ABC.  Though we’ve already commented on the basics of the permit here, we’re following up with answers to the clarification questions we’ve been getting:

Where can I find the privileges for the new off-sale wine license?

Read the ABC Advisory and the enabling statute CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §23393.5.

Can I sell tequila and beer with the Type 85?

No, the privilege is limited to wine.

Can I get the Type 85 license if I have an upper-tier California license?

No.  The Type 85 is a retail-tier license, and there are no special exceptions permitting it to be held with an upper-tier license.  On the flip side, you can get it if you are an employee of an on-sale retailer.  This is a key distinction between the Type 85 and the Type 17/20 combination that remains popular in California.

Can I deliver product stored out-of-state directly to consumers in California with the Type 85?

No.  You must have possession and title to the wine in California. It must be delivered to the consumer from your licensed premises in California or the premises of a licensed public warehouse (Type 14 License).

Can I deliver wine to consumers outside of California with the Type 85?

Yes, but only to about 13 states.  2/3 of those states require additional licensing. You can’t reach New York, Texas, Illinois or Florida.

Do I have to have a location to obtain the Type 85?

Yes.  You have to choose an address where the license will be active and your records will be kept.  It may not be open to the public. You will have to post notice at the premises and mail notice to nearby neighbors.

Who can I buy wine from with the Type 85?

Licensed California wholesalers and wineries.  Not retailers.

How do I apply for the Type 85?

If you are interested in obtaining the license, you need to fill out the forms for an original retail license (e.g.  ABC 211-SIG, 217, 208-A/B, 253, 257, 255, 247, 251, 140, entity forms).  You can obtain them from the ABC website, or can hire an attorney or licensing specialist to complete them and assist you with the process.  The filing fee is $342 ($100 application fee plus $242 annual fee).

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

The San Francisco ABC office will be moving to Oakland this month to allow for remodeling efforts at the San Francisco office.  The current San Francisco office, located at 71 Stevenson St. will be closed beginning at 5 p.m. on Friday, January 20, 2012.  They will re-open at their temporary Oakland location on Monday, January 23, 2012.  The temporary office contact information is:

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

1515 Clay Street, Suite 2208

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 622-4970

Be sure to update your records and plan accordingly if you need to contact the San Francisco ABC office.  It is anticipated that the office will move back into San Francisco in March 2012, but construction delays may extend the moving date.  We will keep you posted as new information arises.

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 ·

The California ABC released an Advisory earlier this month that outlines a compliant path for California alcoholic beverage licensees to engage unlicensed service providers. In our practice, this issue comes up often in reference to websites that look like wine shops, but hold no alcoholic beverage licenses of their own. The Advisory is available here.

We were active on the working group that made suggestions on this issue to the ABC, and were pleased that the ABC was willing to listen to industry feedback before deciding on a course of action. We’ve been getting lots of questions on the provision regarding control of funds, which (is long!) and states:

“The control of funds from a transaction involving the sale of alcoholic beverages constitutes a significant degree of control over a licensed business. As such, while a Third Party provider may act as an agent for the collection of funds (such as receiving credit card information and securing payment authorization), the full amount collected must be handled in a manner that gives the licensee control over the ultimate distribution of funds. This means that the Third Party Provider cannot independently collect the funds, retain its fee, and pass the balance on to the licensee. The Third Party Provider should pass all funds collected from the consumer to the licensee conducting the sale, and that licensee should thereafter pay the Third Party Provider for services rendered. Alternatively, the parties may utilize an escrow account, or similar instrument, that disburses the funds upon the instructions of the licensee. So, for example, a Third Party Provider may accept consumer credit card information, debit the card, deposit the funds in an account under the licensee’s ultimate control, and, upon the licensee’s acceptance of the order and direction to the account holder, receive a fee from the account. Given the nature of Internet transactions, the Department recognizes that such collection, acceptance, and disbursement of funds will often times be accomplished solely through computer-generated means.”

We’re looking forward to seeing how the industry adapts to this provision, which seems to require that all funds for an alcoholic beverage sale settle to the account of a licensee before they are disbursed. Will new “alcohol escrow” businesses pop-up to service the need? Will each unlicensed website create its own special accounting to comply? Will fee collection be adversely affected for the unlicensed websites, such that the business model becomes less viable? We’re watching this issue unfold with great anticipation.

Beginning January 1, 2012, a new license will be available for direct-to-consumer wine sales. The new license is the result of approval of Assembly Bill No. 623, which revises California’s Business and Professions code to add Section 23393.5 authorizing the license. Sales may only be made to consumers. All sales must occur through direct mail, telephone or Internet; they may not be conducted from a location that is open to the public. The licensee must take possession and title to all wine sold. All wine must be delivered to the consumer from the licensee’s premises or a licensed public warehouse. The application and annual fee are the same as those applicable to a Type 20 off-sale beer and wine license. The key differences between the new limited off-sale retail license and a type 20 license are that the type 20 requires a brick and mortar store that is open to the public and a type 20 license also allows the sale of beer for consumption away from the licensed premises. If you would like more information about the license, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

Priority application season is upon us, beginning September 12^th.  ABC Headquarters recently announced the authorization for the issuance of new on-sale general and off-sale general licenses in certain counties.

What this means:

General licenses authorize the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits. They are restricted based upon county population. If your county is already at its maximum, you can’t get a new general license from the ABC and instead must buy one from an existing licensee in your county, typically at a significant premium. However, in counties where growth has occurred, the ABC permits new general licenses within the county once per year during a ‘priority’ application period by allowing both new issuances of licenses in the county and intercounty transfers of licenses. An intercounty transfer means a business owner in the priority county can buy a general license on the open market anywhere in the state and transfer it in to the priority county. A person can apply for one of the priority general license spots in the county, or for one of the priority intercounty general license transfer spots, or for both.

Anyone that anticipates the need for an Off-Sale General Package Store License (Type 21), an On-Sale General Eating Place Restaurant License (Type 47), or a Special On-Sale General Club License (Type 57) within the next year in a county with licenses available should apply.

Licenses Available by County:

For a complete listing of licenses available by county, click here.

2011 Filing Period:

ABC District Offices will accept in-person or mail-in priority applications from September 12-23, 2011. Mail-in applications must be postmarked September 23 or earlier in order to be accepted. If the Department receives more applications than licenses available (which it will), a public drawing is held. Applicants are typically notified two weeks later of their priority status. Once approved for priority, the applicant has 90 days to complete the full formal license application for the identified premises.

Fees:

Priority application fees are $13,800 for new general licenses and $6,000 for intercounty transfers. Only a certified check, cashier’s check or money order will be accepted, and it must be submitted with the priority application. Unsuccessful applicants’ fees will be refunded, less a $100 service charge, within 45 days of the drawing.

Residency requirements:

Every applicant must be a resident of California for at least 90 days prior to the drawing. The 90 day clock starts ticking upon registration with the CA Secretary of State for corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies. Individuals and partners must submit proof of California residency.

If you are interested in applying for a new on or off-sale general priority license, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

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

Although it has not been extensively covered in the media, those involved in the manufacture and importation of certain wine products should be aware of the California Board of Equalization’s (“BOE”) proposed Regulation 2558.1, involving the definition of “wine” for excise tax purposes in California. The regulation should not affect typical wine producers; however, those that create alternative wine products where a portion of the alcohol within the product is derived from, for example, apples or malt grains, instead of grapes, but the product is marketed as a typical grape wine product, should be aware of the proposed Regulation. Enactment of the Regulation essentially means that a sangria product that is classified as “wine” by the ABC could be classified as a distilled spirit by the BOE, and thus be taxed at $3.30/gallon (the rate for distilled spirits that are 100 proof or less) as opposed to the $0.20/gallon rate applied to wine. That constitutes a tax increase of 1650%.  The proposed Regulation would define “wine” for BOE purposes as products that do not include more than .5% alcohol by volume derived from the distillation of fermented agricultural products other than the main agricultural product from which the wine is made. This is different that the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s (“ABC”) definition, which defines wine as:

…the product obtained from normal alcoholic fermentation of the juice of sound ripe grapes or other agricultural products containing natural or added sugar or any such alcoholic beverage to which is added grape brandy, fruit brandy, or spirits of wine, which is distilled from the particular agricultural product or products of which the wine is made and other rectified wine products and by whatever name and which does not contain more than 15 percent added flavoring, coloring, and blending material and which contains not more than 24 percent of alcohol by volume, and includes vermouth and sake, known as Japanese rice wine.

Essentially the ABC’s definition looks at wine as a product to which only a certain amount (15%) of “other” material can be added, while the BOE’s definition is based on a requirement that 95.5% of the alcohol in the product be derived from a single commodity. The process of this change began at the BOE’s November 17, 2010 meeting, wherein it authorized an informal rulemaking process and proceeded on an expedited basis. On December 17, 2010, after preparing an initial draft of the proposed change, an interested parties meeting was held. During the meeting, it became clear to the staff that there was an industry divergence regarding what constituted legitimate “blending material” under the ABC’s definition and what should be included under the BOE’s definition. Thus, the BOE decided that further interested party meetings would not be useful and they settled on a BOE definition that did not derive from the blending viewpoint, but rather from the alcohol derivation viewpoint. On February 23, 2011, the final proposed regulation was issued. A 45-day comment period then began and the next step is a public hearing in front of the BOE in May 2011. The proposed Regulation is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2012.

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

 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.       

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

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? 

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