LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!

Today, judging from the number of emails we have received here, the industry is abuzz over the Sacramento Bee article laying out the current ABC campaign against wineries and breweries letting their fans on Facebook and Twitter feeds know that they were part of the “Save-Mart Grape Escape” program, which was produced by the Sacramento Convention & Visitors Bureau this summer to promote Sacramento as a wine destination.

Mike Testa of the Convention & Visitors Bureau was quoted in the article as saying:

“My concern is that when we reach out in January to the wineries and breweries, they think this event is bad news for them… It isn’t.”

Mike, with all due respect, you are wrong.  This is continuing bad news for every winery, brewery, distillery and retailer in California.  This is part of an ABC “crackdown” on what they perceive to be tied-house violations that has been going on now for well over two years. The ABC has challenged events of all sorts, from music festivals, to shows featuring new products, to charitable events where the sponsors’ names (including retailers) are prominently featured on the collateral, to private label products with retailers’ names on them. The penalties include license suspensions that are often stayed on probation or fines (which start at $3,000 for a retailer and $10,000 for a supplier) in lieu of suspension.

However what the ABC doesn’t explain, because they don’t have to, is the collateral consequences of pleading out the accusation, even with just probation.  That is, this becomes a permanent part of the licensee’s record and is reportable to every other alcoholic beverage agency in the United States (including the TTB) whenever updated applications or new DTC (direct to consumer) permits or OSS (out of state shipper) filings need to be submitted.

Remember the line on the applications about alcohol-related violations?  Well, that’s where disclosures about these violations would need to be made. What’s worse are the consequences of failing to disclose the violation (in gruesome detail), which is a felony charge of perjury.  Just as significant, the violation could adversely affect the application.

Is there a defense?

We think so.

The defense is that the supplier must know and intend for the tied house “thing of value” (whether advertising like a tweet or payment to a third party who buys services from a retailer) to actually provide a tangible benefit to the affected retailer in connection with the sale of alcohol to and by that retailer. Basically, the purpose of the thing of value must be to unfairly push the products of the supplier into the retail account to the detriment of competitors’ products. That is the current test for liability under the federal version of the tied house law, and should (in our view) also be the state test for liability.  It punishes corruption (the purpose of the tied house law) but allows truthful and accurate information to be freely disseminated without fear.

This is a basic First Amendment issue.  A twitter feed announcing support of an event is commercial free speech.  While the 21st Amendment often seems to give the states unrestricted authority, their laws must also comply with the First Amendment.  This was our argument in the bottle-signing case, after which the legislature changed the law.

The law is clear with respect to advertising. A supplier’s communication with customers constitutes commercial speech, which the Supreme Court defined as “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.”  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980). Commercial speech includes a supplier’s ability to “propose a commercial transaction and the . . . listener’s opportunity to obtain information about products.” Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 565 (2001). In this context, the ability of a supplier to send out a tweet to its customers telling them about an event it supports, and where the event is going to be held, regardless of the fact that a retailer also supports the event and is a named sponsor, is the essence of free expression.

As the Supreme Court stated in Central Hudson, commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection unless the government can identify a substantial interest that is directly advanced by its speech restriction, and show that this restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve that government interest. Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. The government bears the burden of justifying its restriction, and that burden is not satisfied by “mere speculation or conjecture.” Instead, the government must demonstrate that the “harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.”  Within this context, the First Amendment trumps any Twenty-first Amendment power to regulate alcoholic beverages that the government might try to claim.  44 Liquormart, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).  The Twenty-first Amendment, the Supreme Court explains, “does not license the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the Constitution” and does not “qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment.”  Id. at 516.

Can the ABC identify the harm that a tweet does? Can the ABC justify the restriction without a showing of a corrupt motive and effect? Does this mean that affected licensees will defend on this basis against this latest assault by the ABC on the liberty of California businesses to tell customers what they are doing and where they are doing it?  That remains to be seen but there are those who have not plead out these charges, and it will be their choice.

Stay tuned for the carpenter and the walrus.

  1. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  2. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  3. ‘Twas the week before New Year’s and the ABC is out in Force – Alerts for the Last Week of 2017, including the Limits on Free Rides
  4. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  5. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  6. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  7. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  8. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  9. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  10. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  11. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  12. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  13. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  14. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  15. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  16. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  17. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  18. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  19. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  20. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  21. FINAL COMMENTS TO TTB NOTICE 160 DUE ON WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 7TH – WE ARE ASKING THE TTB TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD AGAIN TO ALLOW FOR INDUSTRY NEGOTIATION AND ALIGNMENT OF INTERESTS
  22. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  23. New TTB Labeling Requirement Regulations: Out-of-State Bottling Is Not Created Equal and Consumers Right to Know Where the Grapes in their Wine Come from is Compromised
  24. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  25. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  26. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  27. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  28. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  29. The Day the Music Almost Died: The Story of the BottleRock ABC Accusations, the ABC Appeals Board and a Victory for a Common Sense Interpretation of the Tied House Laws
  30. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  31. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  32. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  33. RELIEF AT LAST! ILLINOIS MOVES TO FIX THE SALES TAX LAWSUITS AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS BUT PROPOSES TO PENALIZE WINERIES AND RETAILERS THAT SHIP WITHOUT PERMITS
  34. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  35. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  36. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  37. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  38. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  39. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  40. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  41. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  42. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  43. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  44. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  45. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  46. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  47. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  48. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  49. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  50. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  51. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  52. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  53. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  54. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  55. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  56. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  57. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  58. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  59. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  60. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  61. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  62. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  63. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  64. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  65. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  66. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  67. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  68. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  69. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  70. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  71. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  72. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  73. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  74. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  75. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  76. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  77. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  78. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  79. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 2: California Appeals Court Vacates ABC’s Adoption of a Trade Advisory That Correctly Guided Licensee Conduct
  80. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 1: California Appeals Court Prohibits Alcohol Sales at Self-Check Out Stands
  81. AB 1128: The “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  82. The New York SLA and Online Wine Sales: A Work in Progress
  83. California SB 635: What the 4am Bill Really Means for California Communities
  84. Electronic Invoices in California: Welcome to the 19th Century
  85. The History of Amazon and Wine: What Has Changed?
  86. Third Party Marketing Checklist
  87. BOOZE RULES – PROMOTIONAL APPEARANCES AND AUTOGRAPHS
  88. Washington State: Down the Rabbit Hole of the Tied-House Laws