Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I

“Can the ABC really prohibit me from telling my customers where I will be conducting a retail wine tasting?  Can the ABC really prosecute me for posting on Facebook that I will be attending an event, if the proper name of the event includes part of a retailer’s name?   Can the ABC prosecute me for my tweets about how cool the establishments are that carry my wine?  What happened to freedom of speech?  Did I lose my right to free speech because I produce or sell alcoholic beverages?

The series of blog posts explores those questions, and more, in the context of basic constitutional rights, rights that have up until now seemingly been ignored by the ABC. We are challenging the status quo, and this is why.

What Is “Commercial Speech”?

Explaining your constitutional rights in the context of the regulation of alcoholic beverage regulations requires some background in constitutional law.   While Con Law may not be your cup of tea (or glass of wine), the goal is to understand how the constitution protects you and your business.  So don your powdered wig, tri-corner hat and waistcoat and come along as we explore how the Founding Fathers’ great achievement applies to you today.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:  “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…”   That restriction applies to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, and it was later made applicable to state and local governments (including the agencies that regulate the alcoholic beverage industry) by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The right to free speech is one of the bulwarks of the American system of government.  The vast majority supports free speech, at least in the abstract.   Enthusiasm diminishes when the freedom extends to unpopular speech, such as flag-burning, Neo-Nazi marches, or supporting terrorists, making judicial oversight all the more important.   The First Amendment has provided, and continues to provide, a steady parade of provocative cases that test the limitations of governmental power to suppress expression, either in the form of general prohibitions or post-speech penalties.

The Supreme Court has, in general, construed the freedom of speech broadly and thus constricted governmental power to suppress expression.   Restrictions based on the content of “speech,” which includes “expressive conduct” (such as flag-burning), are invalid, unless the content fits within the few, narrow exceptions that permit government to restrict expression.  Those exceptions include obscenity, defamation, “fighting words,” and incitement to conduct that constitutes a “clear and present danger” (e.g., the well-known exception that allows government to prohibit yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre).

But what about advertisements, promotions, marketing and other forms of commercial expression?   Do those forms of expression qualify as “speech” protected by the First Amendment?   The Supreme Court has categorized those forms of expression as “commercial speech” and held that the category is protected from governmental interference by the First Amendment.  The protection extended to commercial speech is not as absolute as that extended to “pure” speech, but it is nonetheless substantial.

In the landmark Central Hudson case, the Supreme Court defined “commercial speech”  as “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.”   Examples from the decided cases include advertisements in print and electronic media, product labels, soliciting customers, free samples, branded merchandise and events, and free gifts incident to purchases.

In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court enunciated a four-step test for determining the legitimacy of governmental restrictions on commercial speech:

  • First, the commercial speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.  Put another way, the First Amendment protects neither speech promoting illegal activities or products, nor speech that is fraudulent or deceptive.
  • Is a substantial governmental interest served by restricting commercial speech?
  • Does the restriction on commercial speech directly and significantly advance the interest that the government asserts?
  • Is the restriction on commercial speech narrowly tailored to advance the government’s interest, or is it more expansive than necessary?

The Supreme Court has held that the government has the burden to prove that its restrictions meet the Central Hudson test—a good result for those whose rights of expression are threatened by governmental action.

Join us next week for Part II of this blog.   We will discuss how the “commercial speech” doctrine and Central Hudson protect the free speech rights of those in the alcoholic beverage industry. 

  1. MISSISSIPPI RISING - A VICTORY FOR LEGAL RETAILER TO CONSUMER SALES, AND PASSAGE OF TITLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
  2. California ABC's Cannabis Advisory - Not Just for Stoners
  3. NEW CALIFORNIA WARNINGS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 30, 2018, NOW INCLUDING ADDENDUM REGARDING 2014 CONSENT AGREEMENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
  4. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  5. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  6. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  7. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  8. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  9. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  10. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  11. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  12. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  13. ‘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
  14. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  15. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  16. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  17. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  18. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  19. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  20. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  21. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  22. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  23. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  24. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  25. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  26. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  27. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  28. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  29. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  30. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  31. 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
  32. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  33. 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
  34. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  35. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  36. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  37. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  38. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  39. 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
  40. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  41. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  42. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  43. 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
  44. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  45. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  46. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  47. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  48. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  49. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  50. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  51. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  52. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  53. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  54. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  55. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  56. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  57. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  58. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  59. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  60. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  61. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  62. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  63. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  64. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  65. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  66. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  67. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  68. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  69. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  70. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  71. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  72. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  73. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  74. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  75. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  76. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  77. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  78. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  79. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  80. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  81. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  82. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  83. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  84. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  85. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  86. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  87. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  88. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  89. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 2: California Appeals Court Vacates ABC’s Adoption of a Trade Advisory That Correctly Guided Licensee Conduct
  90. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 1: California Appeals Court Prohibits Alcohol Sales at Self-Check Out Stands
  91. AB 1128: The “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  92. The New York SLA and Online Wine Sales: A Work in Progress
  93. California SB 635: What the 4am Bill Really Means for California Communities
  94. Electronic Invoices in California: Welcome to the 19th Century
  95. The History of Amazon and Wine: What Has Changed?
  96. Third Party Marketing Checklist
  97. BOOZE RULES – PROMOTIONAL APPEARANCES AND AUTOGRAPHS
  98. Washington State: Down the Rabbit Hole of the Tied-House Laws