State laws prohibit wineries from directly shipping to many buyers

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 Supreme Court says it will sit down with wine case, examine restrictions

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State laws prohibit wineries from directly shipping to many buyers

By Anne Gearan The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - God made only water, but man made wine, wrote author Victor Hugo. He neglected to mention that man also made laws, courts and bureaucracies - which is how the Supreme Court came to referee a fight among state governments, wineries and consumers over the sale of wine across state lines.

The high court said Monday it will hear three appeals involving state laws that prevent consumers from buying wine directly from out-of-state suppliers.

The dispute pits states and a network of alcohol wholesalers against wineries that want to sell their products over the Internet and by phone.

It also pits one part of the Constitution against another, and both sides can point to recent court rulings for support.

Consumers are caught in the middle, unable to order a favorite U.S. vintage because their home state supplier doesn't stock it, or forced to pay a hefty premium to a middleman if they can get the wine at all, lawyer Clint Bolick said.

"It's protectionist, and it's discriminatory," said Bolick, who represents a family-run winery in Virginia that claims it cannot get its bottles to buyers in New York.

The court will hear that case as well as one involving husband-and-wife wine reviewers in Michigan who challenged the rules and won their case in federal court.

At least 20 states prohibit or constrain direct interstate shipment of wine to consumers, including Kentucky and Indiana. Those two states, and Ohio, are among the 36 that asked the Supreme Court to review laws about interstate wine sales.

Some states say restricting interstate wine shipments helps prevent fraud and underage drinking. They also collect millions of dollars from alcohol taxes.

At issue in the Supreme Court case are laws in Michigan, New York and six other states - Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, Maine, Ohio and Rhode Island. Wineries outside those states cannot ship directly to in-state buyers, and consumers cannot get a given wine if it is not among those carried by the state-approved middlemen.

But wineries based in those states can go around the state distribution system and sell directly to in-state buyers.

Wine is a fast-growing industry. Sales of wine in the United States reached $21.6 billion last year, according to the Wine Institute, a California lobbying organization.

Alcohol is one of the most heavily regulated products in the country, but the rules for who can sell what to whom were generally set before the nationwide growth of small wineries and wine tourism - and long before the Internet emerged as a marketplace.

formatting link

Reply to
Garrison Hilliard
Loading thread data ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

It would be awesome if the same would happen with breweries, but I can only imagine the neo-prohibitionists screaming: "Won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN".

_Randal

Reply to
Randal Chapman

Well, that's probably why it will never happen.

Reply to
sinistersteve

Think a little about what it might really mean. I have, and put it up on my site:

formatting link

Just some food for thought.

Reply to
Lew Bryson

Interesting perspective. And, I do think there are some dangers along the lines of what you wrote if the three-tier system were to end, but I don'tthink it's likely to be as dire as you do.

Think about products other than alcoholic beverages. There are all sorts of small, boutique producers out there, from small record labels to artisan bakers to boutique salad dressings, and much more. They don't have to go through a three-tier system, and they manage to sell their product and get it around. And even small, no-cachet producers can get it done. Take a product like Honest Tea, which was produced by a guy in his kitchen, but he managed to get Whole Food to buy it, and now I can find it at pretty much any grocery in most of the country. I don't see why beer and wine would be

*that* different.

Regarding the shipping point you made: Producers are unlikely to set up shipping departments, but it could be a boon still. Think of the speciality stores that now do shipping, like Hi-Time or Sam's, and I think there's even more potential for them to expand and grow that line of the business without the three-tier system.

But, a lot of the speculation could be quite moot. I'm nowhere near convinced as you are that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the system. Remember, this Court has been really, really big on the states' rights issue, and has taken a rather narrow interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Since states' rights to regulate distribution of alcoholic beverages is written right into the Constitution, thanks to the 21st amendment, I would argue that the system is more likely to be preserved than not.

-Steve

Reply to
Steve Jackson

I don't necessarily think it will be dire. I'm just pretty damned sure it won't be as rosy as some people think.

One, the whole system is not used to competing in a really open market. There's going to be a lot of adjustment to that, and I believe a lot of breweries will fall through the cracks. Two, beer and wine and spirits will continue to be different because of excise taxes, licensing, neo-drys, saving the children...it won't be as free as making cookies or tea. And as you said, the 21st Amendment is going to make all those stupid little state laws stick.

I don't think it's going to expand much; there isn't that much market for it. Beer's heavier per dollar than wine, there's a LOT of shipping costs and refrigeration costs, if you want GOOD shipped beer. This is going to be a tiny niche, never more.

All the 21st Amendment says is that the states can regulate alcohol. If the laws they write to regulate alcohol are not constitutional, away they go. Yes, this has been a states' rights SC, but it's also been a pretty friendly court to business, and three tier is on the face of it restrictive to free trade. Most of the people I've talked to in the biz give it 10 years at the outside, and that's talking to wholesalers. Another interesting bit: there's a case ongoing to attack Montgomery County, MD's county booze stores (MontCo is the only 'control' county in the country) using the Sherman Anti-trust Act: MontCo's stores do have a monopoly on booze sales in the county. If that works, it could bring control states down all across the country. Brave new world. I like control going away, it's horrible. Three-tier I'm not so sure about.

Reply to
Lew Bryson

Yeah, you'll likely be right on that point. Any change in policy always results in unintended consequences. And there's no doubt that a change of this scale, should it happen, will affect a lot of things in ways that people aren't anticipating. Some will be good. Some won't. Who knows which side will see the scales tip in its favor?

Good points, all. If for no other reason than the wineries and breweries aren't necessarily used to a direct distribution model, and that will have some challenges. And even if laws change, the simple market realities in a lot of locations are such that you won't be able to avoid the wholesalers anyway.

But I still think that there will be opportunities to be gained for a good deal of breweries and wineries who are flexible in their business practices and find ways to work the new system. If I had either business, I'd be trying to get in with the likes of Sam's or Hi-Time quickly, since they have sizable shipping businesses and are accustome to handling huge, diverse inventories. Trying to market directly to consumers is likely to be throwing a lot of good money after a very small customer base and will probably cause a few places to go bust.

A niche, yes. A tiny niche? Dunno. I can see there being some growth potential there. Maybe not so much on the beer side, but definitely on the wine side.

And, hell, wouldn't limited-distribution bourbon distilleries also be able to take advantage of this?

It's a tough call. Because either ruling can be construed as pro-business. It's just a matter of which side the court would want to favor.

That sounds about right. The new world of FedEx Ground (I shipped about 20 pounds of beer across the country in four days for like $15), the Internet, etc. is causing the three-tier system to sag under its own weight in many ways. More pressure is going to come from the Costcos and Wal-Marts and Safeways who want to use their huge purchasing clout to make deals for themselves. I can't remember if you mentioned that in your first post or not. Depending on how they exert their influence, that could be problematic in terms of reducing choice. Maybe. I don't know how much that would change the fact that 90 percent of the beer sold is still the usual crap, and most distrbutors have the imports and micros as a sideline. Wal-Mart would worry me a whole hell of a lot more than Costco, since the latter seems to give a damn about quality. That applies in general, I guess, not just drinks.

Control doesn't make sense, no. Three-tier, I see compelling arguments either way. Instinctively, I say get rid of it since I tend to favor free trade in most cases. But I can see some potential pitfalls. Sadly, it's one of those things where we'll never know until we decide to dump it or keep it, since there aren't good paralells to compare it to.

-Steve

Reply to
Steve Jackson

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.