The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means

On March 23, 2016, the Superior Court for Los Angeles County entered an order dismissing Charles, et al. v. The Wine Group, et al., the last remaining class action lawsuit based upon the presence of minute quantities of arsenic in wine.  (For a discussion of arsenic in wine, see our earlier blog post A Layperson Looks At Arsenic in Wine).  Several other class actions in other states had earlier been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs. 

The dismissal was at the pleading stage of the case, which means that there was no discovery and no trial.  The Court essentially said that even if everything the plaintiff’s claimed was true they didn’t have a case. That is what the appeal (already announced by the plaintiffs) is going to be all about. This case will be important to establishing the parameters of the safe harbor that compliance with Proposition 65 is supposed to provide to the wine industry.*

The Charles plaintiff’s claimed that the defendant wineries violated Proposition 65.  That is, of course, the law that gave rise to the proliferation of signs at every cash register at every store in the state stating: This product contains [or---This facility uses] chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.  Plaintiffs claimed that Prop 65 required the defendant wineries to disclose specifically that their wines contain small quantities of arsenic.

Those claims were rejected because plaintiffs did not allege any physical injury resulting from arsenic. Further, the plaintiffs conceded that “the danger of arsenic varies with the level of concentration (as it does with every toxin) and that arsenic can be present in safe drinking water, so long as the concentration level is low.”  In other words, these lawyer-driven claims didn’t show that any real harm existed from the low levels of arsenic that exist in almost all wines.

The court then said that Proposition 65 doesn’t require disclosure of the specific chemicals that give rise to the duty to post the general warning.  This is important because there are over 800 compounds “known to the State of California” to be potential carcinogens or teratogens, and the list is available on-line.  Can you imagine what a label listing 800 chemical compounds would look like?

Turning to specifics, the Judge noted that the list “includes, for instance ‘Aloe Vera, non-decolorized whole leaf extract,” “Aspirin,” “Oral Contraceptives, sequential,” ‘Salted fish, Chinese-style,” “Unleaded gasoline (wholly vaporized),’ ‘and “Wood dust.’”  The point the Judge made was that California law requires only the general warning.  At that point the consumer is the one responsible or obtaining information about minute (and here the parts per billion is truly minute) specific compounds “from the party responsible for the exposure after the warning, rather than through the warning.” 

The Judge then made the obvious point that requiring disclosure of specific compounds would make the warnings “too congested and cumbersome to read and understand.”  That was an understated observation by the Judge.

Wine does not include the “known to the State of California” warning.  Instead, all bottles carry the warning prescribed by both federal and California law:

WARNING: Drinking Distilled Spirits, Beer, Coolers, Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages May Increase Cancer Risk, and, During Pregnancy, Can Cause Birth Defects.

The Court then held that the warning given is “a designated safe harbor provision that specifically applies to ‘wine’” and is sufficient by itself.  This is important to every producer in the wine industry because it is a guide to lawful conduct. Everyone wants to know how they can be complaint. The Judge here answered that question: make sure that the Proposition 65 warning requirements are observed.

For those reasons the Judge dismissed the complaint and told the plaintiff’s that there was no way they could amend it to actually prove a case.  That order can be appealed (and the plaintiff’s said that they will appeal it), but, in our view, the dismissal should be affirmed. Keep in mind that an appeal that results in the Judge’s order being affirmed would not be a bad thing because then the decision would have a broader precedential effect. The message to the plaintiff’s here is be careful what you ask for.

The bottom line is that the decision both terminates a meritless claim and provides an important precedent for the industry.  There are undoubtedly traces of some of the 800-plus compounds on the “known to California” list, other than arsenic, in many products, including wine.  Putting the prescribed warning on the bottle protects producers from having to disclose specific compounds and from future frivolous lawsuits. So make sure your labels are compliant!

Finally, when you raise your next glass, please remember to toast the Superior Court and this Judge for a sound, well-reasoned rejection of what is hopefully the last lawsuit based upon the presence of minute quantities of arsenic (or anything else) in wine.  Salut!

 

*n.b. Hinman & Carmichael LLP represented defendants in the arsenic cases, and served as regulatory counsel to the joint defense committee

Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge

New proposed regulations in Mexico threaten the ability of small producers of artisanal agave spirits to market what makes them artisanal

Much like how the farm-to-table movement in restaurants has placed the source of the food on your plate front and center, the Mexican agave artisanal spirits movement is highlighting each element that goes into a glass, from the cultivation of the plant and the methods for harvesting and cooking the piña to the distillation process and ultimate bottling. Long gone are the days of tequila or mezcal with its worms, relegated to shots and frozen margaritas.

“New” Mexican agave spirits are making inroads in the American bar scene precisely because they can be marketed as artisanal and small-batch, with a focus on the specific types of varietal used in the distillation and the specific regions in which they are produced—a transparency that’s particularly attractive to American bartenders and imbibers alike. However, a new regulation proposed in Mexico may severely limit what information will appear on bottles of Mexican spirits in the future.   

traditional mezcal production source: flickr.com

traditional mezcal production source: flickr.com

In a proposed regulation first published in November 2015, the Mexican government plans to create new classifications and requirements for labeling and marketing of agave spirits, which it claims will combat the issue of counterfeiting and better protect brands.

The introduction to this new regulation, PROYECTO DE NORMA OFICIAL MEXICANA PROY-NOM-199-SCFI-2015, “BEBIDAS ALCOHÓLICAS – DENOMINACIÓN, ESPECIFICACIONES FISICOQUÍMICAS, INFORMACIÓN COMERCIAL Y MÉTODOS DE PRUEBA,” or “NOM-199,” states that its purpose is to protect consumers from deceptive marketing by setting standards for the naming, production, and testing of agave spirits produced in Mexico. 

In spite of the positive intention behind the new regulation, these same classifications and regulations may ultimately create consumer confusion and threaten the ability of legitimate small producers to advertise the special qualities of their authentic spirits that are driving the increased demand in the marketplace. Outrage is being voiced on industry-specific blogs, with fears that the proposed regulations will hamstring small producers from standing out in an increasingly-crowded field of competitors, both licit and illicit.  

NOM-199 will change how many Mexican spirits are named and categorized. The biggest change under the new regulation is the creation of a new umbrella spirit called “komil.” Under NOM-199, any agave distillate spirit that is 51% or more agave and is produced outside of certain defined Denomination of Origin regions in Mexico must be labeled komil, a word not defined in the regulation nor known by most consumers, but which appears to originate from the Nahuatl word for “alcoholic beverage.”

In the new world of Mexican spirits there would be no distinction between a small-production 100% agave spirit made using traditional methods, and a 51% agave / 49% filler mixture, including industrial spirits made on a mass scale in commercial facilities. No reference can be made to what agave varietals are used; in fact, the word “agave” itself cannot be used in any labeling. As a result, small producers would be unable to distinguish their products based on agave varietal, location, or production method and consumers would have no clue what they were imbibing under the komil name.  (To further complicate matters, Wild Agave Imports, LLC of Texas filed a USPTO intent to use trademark application in January for the word mark “Komil.”)

It is not yet certain that this regulation will, in fact, be enacted. A similar regulation was defeated in 2012 after a concerted effort by independent producers and retailers. There are already a number of petitions opposing NOM-199 that have are gaining support, and it may very well be that the public outcry will be enough to change the course of this regulation. On March 17, David Suro, president of the Tequila Interchange Project, a non-profit advocating on behalf of the agave distilled spirits industry, and one of the leading voices of Mezcal promotion in the United States, and others filed their comment in opposition of NOM-199 with Mexico’s Regulatory Commission.

Retailers and consumers of agave spirits here in America should watch with interest as NOM-199 goes through its comment and enactment process. Depending on what happens, we should all keep our eye on the Mexican spirits that end up behind bars and on shelves in the near future.  

Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!

Yesterday morning (March 10th) the CA ABC quietly issued a notice informing the public that on Saturday, March 12 it will be conducting, in conjunction with “as many as 100 local Police and Sheriff’s Departments” a statewide “shoulder tap decoy operation.” 

In shoulder tap operations, minors under the supervision of law enforcement officers will stand outside stores that sell wine, beer and spirits (potentially including urban winery, brewery and craft distiller tasting rooms) and attempt to solicit adults to purchase alcohol for them.  If an adult agrees to purchase alcohol for the minor decoy, the adult will be arrested and cited for furnishing alcohol to a minor.  “The penalty for furnishing alcohol to a minor is a minimum $1000 fine and 24 hours of community service.”

If the merchant knows or should have known that the adult was purchasing for a minor the merchant would also be liable for the crime, and its license would be at risk. An example of this would be when a licensee employee sees the minor hanging out in front of the location, and doesn’t take steps to tell the minor to move on.

While the goal of a shoulder tap operation is to curtail the purchasing of alcohol for underage individuals by adults, the increased law enforcement presence has in the past, and will undoubtedly in this operation, lead to additional arrests and citations for other, alcoholic beverage law related offenses.  Hundreds of law enforcement agents focusing on licensee alcohol sales protocols means that all aspects of the licensees operation (including compliance with conditions) will be examined and, if the licensee is found wanting, will result in accusations.

The ABC press release states that during a similar operation last year, citations were issued for “open containers, false identification and other violations.” We are assuming that no one wants to be part of a sale to a minor.  It’s the “other violations” that give us (and should give every licensee out there) heartburn. Retailers should be extra vigilant this weekend to ensure they are fully compliant with all laws and regulations – the police are out in force! 

The timing of the operation and the notice will allow the ABC to claim that they gave notice of the operation, which could result in aggravated discipline.

If you would like a refresher on compliance, Hinman & Carmichael has 30+ years of experience in the arena.  

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

By:  John W. Edwards II and John Hinman     

As readers of this blog (and certainly the many wineries and wine retailers who have been sued) know, the State of Illinois permitted the politically connected Diamond law firm to maintain hundreds of qui tam lawsuits claiming that not collecting sales tax on shipping charges for wine sent to Illinois consumers violated Illinois law. (See previous blog posts Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits - Private Enforcement of a State ClaimIllinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, But Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases). It was not a surprise that in every case the costs of litigating the claims exceeded Diamond’s settlement demand.  The result? Many settlements. Both Diamond and the State (which was a passive party) reaped substantial windfalls.  This was a State-sanctioned rip-off and is a glaring example of the misuse of governmental power for the benefit of one politically connected lawyer.

Now there is a new sheriff in town. Governor Bruce Rauner took office in January 2015.  Because of the outrage that the Diamond lawsuits generated around the US (including by the Wine Institute and almost every state winery and wine retailer trade association) the Illinois Attorney General moved to dismiss numerous claims against the defendants that were still pending.  The trial court in Chicago granted the motions, holding that the State has broad discretion to decide what qui tam claims it wishes to pursue and Diamond wasn’t the one who should be making that decision.

Following up, the Illinois Department of Revenue (“IDOR”) proposed amendments to its regulations that will, if adopted (likely in the first half of 2016), clarify the Illinois rules on taxes on shipping charges.  The amendments will accomplish the following:

  • Any seller that provides its Illinois customers with the option of picking up the ordered goods at the Sellers’s location is not required to remit sales taxes on shipping charges - if the pick-up option is offered at the time of sale. The Illinois customer does not have to use the pick-up option, or even be likely to use it.  All that the seller will have to do is provide the option. This provision will be retroactive to 2009, when the Illinois Supreme Court decided the case that gave rise to the claims for taxes on shipping charges in the first place. This is a simply common sense solution.

  • To prevent a new series of claims on behalf of consumers against sellers that did collect Illinois sales tax on shipping charges, the IDOR proposed a unique safe harbor for those that had offered the pick-up option all along.  Sellers that offered a pick-up option will be deemed to have remitted sales taxes to Illinois correctly, regardless of whether they (i) collected and paid taxes on shipping after 2009 or (ii) did not collect the tax.  This safe harbor is intended to protect Sellers from further litigation in Illinois, no matter how they responded to the confusion caused by the 2009 decision that gave rise to basis of the lawsuit in the first place.

  • Going forward, a Seller that offers free shipping (where permitted) or free shipping over a minimum amount of purchases need not collect tax on any additional shipping charges the customer chooses to incur, such as expedited shipping charges, so long as the selling price of the goods does not change.

  • Also, going forward, if a Seller that offers a pick-up option for some goods but not others and the customer chooses to have all goods shipped, the Seller can itemize the shipping charge for each item and must collect sales tax on the charges for the items without the pick-up option.  If the Seller charges a lump sum for shipping, the entire charge is taxable if the total cost of goods without a pick-up option exceeds the cost of those with the option, but nontaxable if the reverse is true. It behooves all sellers to carefully examine their pick-up option terms and conditions.

  • The new Regulations will apply to all Sellers that make sales to Illinois consumers and that (i) are subject to the Illinois Retailers Occupation Tax; (ii) maintain a place of business in Illinois; (iii) self-assess the Illinois sales and use tax; and (iv) hold a winery Shipper’s License from Illinois.

While these regulations provide welcome, albeit long-overdue, relief to wine sellers servicing Illinois consumers, those wineries (and there are many small wineries who just don’t obtain DTC permits) and retailers (who are prohibited from applying for DTC permits) face serious penalties (including potential felony charges) for shipping without a DTC permit. Moreover, the proposed inclusion of the Illinois trade practice policies into the regulations require that all wine shipped into Illinois be actually produced by the winery holding the DTC permit.

Rulemaking

To top it all off a new bill [IL SB 2989] is pending in the Illinois legislature that does following (from the bill description):

Provides that any person who both has received an initial cease and desist letter from the State Commission and for compensation ships alcoholic liquor into this State without a license shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. Prohibits and establishes criminal penalties for the transportation of more than a certain amount of beer, wine, or spirits into the State without a license or for transporting beer, wine, or spirits into the State for sale or resale without a license. Increases other penalties.

Once again a state introduces a “send wine, go to jail” bill. Illinois is (and will continue to be) a challenging state in which to do business, especially for those without DTC permits, or for those unable to obtain DTC permits. 

The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!

BOOZE RULES SPECIAL EDITION

First the good news:  the TTB has made it clear today that there are some protected activities in the Category Management realm.  Namely, TTB (as specified in 27 CFR 6.99) does not object to furnishing retailers with shelf plans or shelf schematics, regardless of their complexity. [TTB Ruling 2016-1]

Now the bad news: While “Category management” has been a popular word in the world of large producers, wholesalers and retailers, it is about to get much less popular because of the apparent narrowing of the scope of the exemption in the Ruling.

For the last 20 or so years “Category Captains” (prominent industry producers and wholesalers in all three categories, wine, beer and spirits) have been selected (in an obscure process akin to a beauty contest) by multiple outlet (and multi state) retail store buyers to oversee the process of coordinating shelf sets, communicating with other suppliers and wholesalers and furnishing data that shows the most profitable arrangement of their categories products on a retailer’s shelves, or in a wine list for chain restaurants.

Category Captains are tasked with assisting retail chain buyers in making hard choices between competing products, usually through data analysis focusing on shelf turns and SKU profitability.  The Category Captains also coordinate implementation of final shelf sets and communicate and assist in organizing the shelf resetting activity that the retail chains require for every new approved schematic.

The retail chain buyers always retain final approval over all product selections. The position of the retailers is that all that is being furnished to them is sales data, that any supplier may send in sales data and that the process is permitted by Section 27 CFR 6.99 of the TTB’s tied house regulations (which specifically permits suppliers to provide schematics as sales tools, but nothing else). California has a specific statute, Section 25503.2, describing the permissible scope of supplier activities at retail premises. The TTB regulates suppliers and the California ABC (and every other ABC agency in the country) regulates both suppliers and retailers. Thus, while the allowable standards may vary from one state to another the fact that category management activity is typically conducted at chain headquarters means that the effect on out of state in-store activity is not usually transparent at the state level.

Of course the fact that there are thousands of products in each category (wine, spirits and beer) means that some brands are inevitably left out and not included in whatever new shelf set or schematic is initiated at the headquarters level. This leads to hard feelings among the brand owners whose products are not among the chosen, and a sneaking suspicion that the game is fixed in favor of the brands carried by the Category Captains. Many chains address this concern locally by providing local managers with discretion to select a percentage of local products for inclusion in their stores.

Two and half years ago (in September of 2012) the TTB reacted to the complaints and initiated an investigation that included massive record subpoenas to certain large brands, and to the largest chain retailers.  The targets of the subpoenas wondered why they were selected when the Category Captains were (for the most part) left alone.  That investigation went nowhere.  The retailers and producers all complained that the agency subpoenas were overly broad and wouldn’t produce useful information.  That investigation stalled but is technically still alive.

That brings us to 2015 and the Kroger’s and Southern initiative to manage the Kroger’s shelves through a venture paid for by the supplier’s whose products were submitted to the managers of the initiative for placement. [Kroger October 21, 2015 letter]  The permissibility of this initiative was questioned by every major trade association in the industry (wine, beer and spirits) and guidance from the TTB was sought. [NBWA letter, November 16, 2015, Beer Institute letter, December 2, 2015, Joint Trade Association letter, December 7, 2015, Discus and Wine Institute letter, December 8, 2015, WSWA letter, December 15, 2015].

The TTB responded to these requests for guidance today with Ruling 2016-1.

The TTB stated the following in their “special release” this afternoon:

CATEGORY MANAGEMENT AND "TIED HOUSE"
In response to industry requests for clarification, TTB has issued general guidance concerning promotional activities commonly associated with category management programs and whether or not those activities are lawful.
Specifically, TTB Ruling 2016-1, The Shelf Plan and Shelf Schematic Exception to the "Tied House" Prohibition, and Activities Outside Such Exception, clarifies what is and what is not permissible in terms of shelf plans and shelf schematics.
The beverage alcohol industry has been experiencing phenomenal growth with many new, often small, businesses entering the market.  Consequently, maintaining a level playing field has never been more important than today.  We are committed to enforcing our trade practice jurisdiction so that consumers can continue to enjoy a wide selection of products and industry members can compete for those consumers in a fair and open marketplace.

The TTB ruling, however, goes beyond the facts of the Southern/Kroger’s initiative in which, it has been reported, suppliers were funding an independent company organized and operated by Southern for the benefit of managing Kroger’s alcohol categories. This is what is called a third party initiative where the thing of value to Kroger’s, if there is one, is indirect. 

Rather, the TTB appears to be directly aiming at common category management practices that occur daily in the industry. In this regard, the Ruling raises as many questions as it answers.

For example, the following is from the Ruling and is followed by our commentary.

The Ruling clarifies that suppliers are prohibited from:

(1) Assuming, in whole or in part, a retailer’s purchasing or pricing decisions, or shelf stocking decisions involving a competitor’s products. Comment: does this mean that Suppliers cannot argue for the inclusion or exclusion of specific products?  How active do retail buyers have to be in the decision making process? If they just sign off on a supplier’s suggestion are they allowing a supplier to “assume” the purchasing or pricing decision?

(2) Receiving and analyzing, on behalf of the retailer, confidential and/or proprietary competitor information. Comment: what kind of confidential or “proprietary” information may the supplier analyze?  Does this mean that competitors pricing information (which is publicly available but certainly “proprietary”) cannot be furnished to a retailer?  That would seem to knock out most sales presentations.

(3) Furnishing to the retailer items of value, including market data from third party vendors. Comment: this is a hard one. Everyone uses market data form reporting services (such as IRI Nielsen) in making presentations.  This is a common sales tool. The data is unquestionably valuable but is it unlawful?

(4) Providing follow-up services to monitor and revise the schematic where such activity involves an agent or representative of the industry member communicating (on behalf of the retailer) with the retailer’s stores, vendors, representatives, wholesalers, and suppliers concerning daily operational matters (such as store resets, add and delete item lists, advertisements and promotions). Comment: this is what Category Captains (and good salespeople) do every single day. They monitor performance, stock movement and make recommendations for managing the inventory, including by communicating with other suppliers who are included in the various product sets.

(5) Furnishing a retailer with human resources to perform merchandising or other functions, with the exception of stocking, rotation or pricing services of the industry member’s own product, as permitted in § 6.99(a) of the TTB regulations. Comment: every supplier actively merchandises the retail accounts in its territory.  This includes set up and stocking of displays (legal in California). Where is the line drawn here?

The TTB is certainly well-meaning in its attempt to be appropriately responsive to the Southern/Kroger’s initiative.  However in the process it has apparently mandated increased constraints on retail category management activity that has been occurring for over two decades with minimal regulatory interference.  If the state agencies (which, except for Ohio, haven’t been heard from yet) follow suit it is going to be a very interesting year in the world of the large producers and the large retailers who, we expect, will not appreciate the potential loss of efficient category management tools.

Stay tuned for the next chapter in this saga.  Whatever it is promises to be interesting.

  1. New California Alcohol Laws for 2024 – a Mixed Bag of Privileges, Punishments, Clarifications, and Politics
  2. TTB Speaks up on Social Media
  3. Alcohol Trade Practices Update
  4. President Biden just made a big cannabis announcement... what does it mean?
  5. The Uniform Law Commission – Encouraging Consistent State by State Definitions, Protocols and Procedures
  6. San Francisco to the Governor - Review the RBS Program and Delay Implementation. Problems must be Corrected.
  7. TTB and Consignment Sales – Is There a Disconnect Between Policy Development and Business Reality?
  8. RBS ADDENDUM – THE LATEST FROM THE ABC AS THE AGENCY PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION ON THE CALIFORNIA ABC’S MANDATORY RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVER PROGRAM
  9. THE STATE OF TO-GO BOOZE IN CALIFORNIA
  10. BOOZE RULES SPECIAL EDITION – THE RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE PROGRAM FACTS AND REQUIREMENTS
  11. Competition in the Beverage Alcohol Industry Continues Under the Microscope – Part 3
  12. Competition in the Beverage Alcohol Industry Under the Microscope – Part 2
  13. Competition in the Beverage Alcohol Industry Now Under the Microscope
  14. Alcohol Marketplaces 2.0 Part 5: Looking Ahead
  15. It’s Time for a Regulatory Check-Up: Privacy Policies for email marketing and websites
  16. Alcohol Marketplaces 2.0 Part 4: Who’s responsible for ensuring legal drinking age?
  17. Alcohol Marketplaces 2.0 Part 3: Follow the Money
  18. BOOZE RULES 2021 – NEW CONTAINER SIZES APPROVED FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: KEEPING TRACK OF THE TTB’S ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE CONTANER SIZES
  19. Alcohol Marketplaces 2.0 Part 2: Collect sales tax from marketplaces or comply with alcohol guidance?
  20. Alcohol Marketplaces 2.0 Part 1: Solicitation of sales by unlicensed third-party providers
  21. Federal Cannabis Legalization Fortune-Telling
  22. BOOZE RULES – THE DIRECT SHIPPING WARS
  23. California ABC provides additional Covid guidance on virtual events and charitable promotions
  24. Hot Topics for Alcohol Delivery 2020
  25. California Reopening Roadmap is Now a Blueprint for a Safer Economy
  26. The Hospitality Reopening Roadmap to Success
  27. Salads Not A Meal in California, Says ABC
  28. Delivery Personnel Beware – The ABC is Coming for You and for the Licensees Hiring You to Deliver Alcoholic Beverages - This Time Its Justified
  29. Licensees Beware – the Harsh New ABC Enforcement Rules Are Effective Right Now
  30. Part 2: LEGAL FAQS ON REOPENING CA RESTAURANTS, BREWPUBS, BARS AND TASTING ROOMS
  31. John Hinman’s May 22, 2020 interview with Wine Industry Advisor on the ABC COVID-19 Regulatory Relief initiatives and the ABC “emergency rule” proposals
  32. Booze Rules May 21 - The Latest on the ABC Emergency Rules
  33. Part 1: Legal FAQs on Reopening CA Restaurants, Brewpubs, Bars and Tasting Rooms
  34. The ABC’s Fourth Round of Regulatory Relief - Expanded License Footprints Through Temporary COVID-19 Catering Authorizations, and Expanded Privileges for Club Licensees
  35. BOOZE RULES – May 17, 2020 Special Edition
  36. ABC ENFORCEMENT - ALIVE, ACTIVE AND OUT IN THE COMMUNITY
  37. Frequently Asked Questions about ABC’s Guidance on Virtual Wine Tastings
  38. ABC Keeps California Hospitality Industry Essential
  39. ABC REGULATORY RELIEF – ROUND TWO – WHAT IT MEANS
  40. Essential Businesses Corona Virus Signage Requirement Every Essential Business in San Francisco Must Post Sign by Friday, April 3rd
  41. Promotions Compliance: Balancing Risk and Reward
  42. The March 25, 2020 ABC Guidance: Enforcement Continues; Charitable Giving Remains Subject to ABC Rules; and More – What Does it all Mean?
  43. Restaurant and Bar Best Practices – Surviving Covid 19, Stay at Home and Shelter in Place Under the New ABC Waivers
  44. Economically Surviving the Covid Crisis and the Shelter in Place Orders: A Primer on Regulatory interpretations and Options
  45. Booze Rules – Hinman & Carmichael LLP and the Corona Virus
  46. Booze Rules: 2020 and the Decade to Come – Great Expectations (with apologies to Charles Dickens)
  47. The RBS Chronicles: If Your Business serves Alcoholic Beverages YOU NEED TO READ THIS AND TAKE ACTION!
  48. RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE ACT HEARING – OCTOBER 11TH IN SACRAMENTO – BE THERE!
  49. WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR COMES CALLING – BEST PRACTICES.
  50. RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE ACT PROPOSED ABC RULES 160 TO 173 – WHY THE RUSH?
  51. The TTB Crusade Against Small Producers and the “Consignment Sale” Business Model
  52. TTB Protocols, Procedures, and Investigations
  53. Wine in a 250 ML can – the Mystery of the TTB packaging Regulations and Solving the Problem by Amending the Regulations
  54. The Passing of John Manfreda of the TTB: a Tragedy for his family and a Tragedy for the Industry he so Faithfully Served for so Long.
  55. Pride in a Job Well-done, or Blood Money? The Cost of Learning the Truth from the TTB about the Benefits to Investigators from Making Cases Against Industry Members
  56. How ADA Website Compliance Works – The Steps You Can Take to Protect Yourself, Your Website and Your Social Media from Liability
  57. Supplier and Distributor Promotional “Banks,” Third Party Promotion Companies and Inconsistent TTB Enforcement, Oh My!
  58. “A Wrong Without a Remedy – Not in My America” – The TTB Death Penalty for Not Reporting Deaths
  59. Is a 1935 Alcohol Beverage Federal Trade Practice Law Stifling Innovation?
  60. Decoding the BCC’s Guidance on Commercial Cannabis Activity.
  61. Prop 65 - Escaping a "Notice of Violation"
  62. TTB Consignment Sales Investigations - What is Behind the Curtain of the TTB Press Releases?
  63. Heads Up! The ABC Is Stepping Up Enforcement Against Licensees Located Near Universities
  64. Coming Soon: New Mandatory Training Requirements for over One Million “Alcohol Servers” In California – September 1, 2021 will be here quickly
  65. 2019 Legislative Changes for California Alcohol Producers – a Blessing or a Curse?
  66. A Picture (On Instagram) Is Worth A Thousand Words
  67. Playing by the Rules: California Cannabis Final Regulations Takeaways
  68. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Names Erin Kelleher Partner and Welcomes Gillian Garrett and Tsion “Sunshine” Lencho to the Firm
  69. Congress Makes History and Changes the CBD Game for Good
  70. Pernicious Practices (stuff we see that will get folks in trouble!) Today’s Rant – Bill & Hold
  71. CBD: An Exciting New Fall Schedule… or Not?
  72. MISSISSIPPI RISING - A VICTORY FOR LEGAL RETAILER TO CONSUMER SALES, AND PASSAGE OF TITLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
  73. California ABC's Cannabis Advisory - Not Just for Stoners
  74. NEW CALIFORNIA WARNINGS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 30, 2018, NOW INCLUDING ADDENDUM REGARDING 2014 CONSENT AGREEMENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
  75. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  76. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  77. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  78. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  79. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  80. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  81. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  82. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  83. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  84. ‘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
  85. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  86. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  87. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  88. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  89. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  90. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  91. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  92. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  93. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  94. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  95. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  96. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  97. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  98. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  99. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  100. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!