Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II

Commercial Speech And The Alcoholic Beverage Industry

Part I of this blog discusses the definition of “commercial speech” and the protections that have been extended to it by the Supreme Court.  Those concepts are critically important to the alcoholic beverage industry for two reasons.  First, producers and sellers of alcoholic beverages are engaged in commerce, and their success depends, in large part, upon commercial speech.  Second, the industry is subjected to stringent governmental regulations, many of which drastically restrict participants’ rights to free expression.  

The intense regulation of the alcoholic beverage industry springs from the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Prohibition and gave the states substantial powers to regulate the industry within their own borders.  Does the Twenty-First Amendment diminish industry participants’ rights to free expression, at least insofar as their commercial speech relates to alcoholic beverages? 

In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, the Supreme Court answered “No” to that question.  The Court invalidated a Rhode Island law that prohibited advertising the retail prices of alcoholic beverages as an unconstitutional restraint on commercial speech, applying the 4-part Central Hudson test discussed in our last posting.   The state attempted to justify its ban as an exercise of its authority under the Twenty-First Amendment, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument: “[W]e now hold that the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment.”  The court also rejected Rhode Island’s assertion that its restriction was a justified as a condition to the licenses granted to retailers: “Even though government is under no obligation to provide a person, or the public, a particular benefit, it does not follow that conferral of the benefit may be conditioned on the surrender of a constitutional right.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling that participants in the alcoholic beverage industry have the same First Amendment rights to free expression as everyone else might surprise someone looking at the plethora of onerous restrictions on commercial speech that still persist in the industry, and the violations that regulators routinely assert against industry members.  The 44 Liquormart case was decided in 1996, but it has yet to have a meaningful impact upon legislators and regulators in many states.  Restrictive laws and regulations are commonplace, and many regulators still seek to penalize producers and retailers for commercial speech that would be unassailable in any other industry.  

The industry is becoming more proactive in asserting the First Amendment rights of its participants.  That trend should accelerate until regulators understand and respect participants’ rights.

The First Amendment should figure prominently in arguments to repeal or reform onerous regulations, and in defending against charges based on those regulations. The key to those arguments is the 4-part Central Hudson test, on which the government bears the burden of proving that its restriction meets that test.

Consider one of innumerable examples.  California law permits wine producers to respond to consumer inquiries about which retailers carry their wines, but only if they mention at least two retailers.  Suppose that a prospective consumer sends and email asking a small winery for the name of the retailer closest to her home, the winery responds by providing the address of one store that is part of a national chain, and the winery is then cited by the regulators for violating the statute. 

The winery’s statement is indisputably truthful, non-deceptive commercial speech, so the government bears the burden of showing that its effort to penalize that speech meets the Central Hudson test.  The California Supreme Court and Legislature have both recognized two paramount and legitimate interests served by the state’s alcoholic beverage control laws:  (1) preventing large producers from dominating and controlling local markets; and (2) preventing excessive consumption of alcohol.  The government would assert the first interest in this case.  Then, it must prove that its regulation advances that interest significantly and in the narrowest possible fashion.  However, it seems unlikely that the government could even prove that the large chain would ever know of the winery’s responsive email, let alone that that email has any real prospect of allowing the small winery to control the large retail chain.  The regulation is thus overly-broad, because it seeks to punish the small winery for conduct that could not lead to the result that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing.  Because the state cannot meet its burden of proof, the winery should win.

The preceding hypothetical is by no means an exaggeration of the types of charges still routinely being brought against industry members in many states.   As in the hypothetical, many industry regulations were passed in furtherance of governmental interests that cannot be shown to be relevant to current industry conditions.  Industry members that are threatened with penalties for commercial speech should hold the government to its burden to prove that the penalty meets the Central Hudson test.

In more extreme situations, some industry members are suing state officials directly for damages and injunctive relief under the federal Civil Rights Act.   The defendant officials routinely assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims, because they acted in good faith and did not violate established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.  In two prominent cases, however, federal Courts of Appeals have denied qualified immunity to state ABC officials.  

In LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, decided in 2000, the Ninth Circuit rejected a defense of qualified immunity for California ABC officials.  The officials had threatened to suspend the on-premises license of a hotel if it allowed a convention to display an erotic art show.  The show was not “obscene” under First Amendment standards but sufficiently graphic to run afoul of an ABC regulation.  The Ninth Circuit held that, four years after 44 Liquormart, the officials should have known that “state liquor regulations are subject to the First Amendment just like any other state enactments.”

More recently, the Sixth Circuit rejected a qualified immunity defense for Michigan regulators who had banned a beer label proposed by Flying Dog Brewery as “detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public.”  The Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s decisions on commercial speech “should have placed any reasonable state liquor commissioners on notice that banning a beer label based on its content would violate the First Amendment” and sent the case back for a trial on the brewery’s claims against the officials for damages caused by the ban.

The trend towards protecting the First Amendment rights is encouraging for the alcoholic beverage industry.  Industry participants can advance that trend by asserting their rights and opposing unconstitutional interference by overly zealous regulators. 

Stay tuned for further installments to this blog.  We will continue to report on developments in this important area. 

  1. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  2. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  3. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  4. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  5. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  6. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  7. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  8. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  9. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  10. ‘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
  11. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  12. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  13. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  14. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  15. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  16. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  17. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  18. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  19. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  20. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  21. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  22. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  23. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  24. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  25. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  26. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  27. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  28. 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
  29. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  30. 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
  31. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  32. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  33. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  34. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  35. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  36. 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
  37. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  38. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  39. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  40. 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
  41. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  42. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  43. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  44. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  45. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  46. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  47. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  48. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  49. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  50. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  51. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  52. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  53. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  54. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  55. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  56. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  57. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  58. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  59. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  60. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  61. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  62. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  63. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  64. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  65. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  66. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  67. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  68. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  69. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  70. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  71. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  72. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  73. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  74. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  75. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  76. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  77. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  78. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  79. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  80. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  81. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  82. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  83. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  84. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  85. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  86. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 2: California Appeals Court Vacates ABC’s Adoption of a Trade Advisory That Correctly Guided Licensee Conduct
  87. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 1: California Appeals Court Prohibits Alcohol Sales at Self-Check Out Stands
  88. AB 1128: The “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  89. The New York SLA and Online Wine Sales: A Work in Progress
  90. California SB 635: What the 4am Bill Really Means for California Communities
  91. Electronic Invoices in California: Welcome to the 19th Century
  92. The History of Amazon and Wine: What Has Changed?
  93. Third Party Marketing Checklist
  94. BOOZE RULES – PROMOTIONAL APPEARANCES AND AUTOGRAPHS
  95. Washington State: Down the Rabbit Hole of the Tied-House Laws