The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is

However one happens upon the wine industry (love of wine, retirement from a lucrative profession into the countryside to grow premium wine grapes or just good luck), the subject of doing business in a regulated space becomes an issue sooner rather than later. Wine production and sales are subject to a dizzying mix of regulation at the federal and state level, enough to frighten even the most dedicated and well-funded. While regulation cannot be avoided, many people figure there must be an easier way to get started than by locating a facility and applying for the complicated licenses and permits.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. This blog post explores the dangers inherent in many of the common work-around solutions brought to us. Do these questions sound familiar?

“I don’t have licenses of my own, but can’t I just use a winery’s licenses to make my wine and get the products to market?”
“I sell a winery my grapes and they make the wine and sell it. Can’t I just have them use my name on the bottle, sell the wine and we split the profits?”
“I have my grapes custom crushed. Can’t I just use the winery’s DTC permits to service the 30 plus states in which I may not legally sell wine?”

These questions all refer to “license piggyback” scenarios, where one winery’s licenses are being used to incubate a new wine brand, or leverage markets foreclosed to non-licensees.

The Problematic Relationship

The problem with any “license piggyback” solution is the same problem facing third party provider (TPP) marketing websites: you cannot “avail” yourself of the privileges of someone else’s license. Specifically, licensees cannot share profits with non-licensees, and unlicensed persons and entities cannot take title to, or sell, alcoholic beverages without a license appropriate to the relationship. This has been ruled on by the California ABC and the New York SLA, and the principle is universal throughout the US alcohol regulatory system. Combine these restrictions with the proliferation of new brands from people using the marketing power of their famous names, and wineries who blithely provide services to their grape growing friends and neighbors for a cut of the profits, and it is easy to see how problematic relationships are born from well-intentioned business deals.

Custom Crush Arrangements

Brand owners are sometimes new to the alcohol beverage industry and its morass of legal restrictions, and do not realize that they need a license to sell wine. They sign standard custom crush agreements with wineries, which mandate somewhere in the fine print (too long; didn’t read) that the brand owner have the licenses to take title to the product. The winery doesn’t follow up, the brand owner cuts a check and moves product to a warehouse, then sells it either direct to consumers, or to a distributor and back into the three tier-system. If the winery allows its license to be used, it has made an unlawful sale and the brand owner has engaged in the purchase and sale of wine without a license. Those are criminal acts under the express terms of the California ABC Act. That is not good for peace of mind or (maybe, we could be wrong about this) running for political office.

Wineries should make sure that their custom crush clients have licenses to take title to the product wineries manufacture for them as part of the vetting process during contract negotiations (either that or they intend to drink the wine themselves, or give it away).

For brand owners, custom crush agreements are necessary if the plan is to obtain licenses to sell the wine at wholesale, or direct to consumers such as with the Type 17/20 license combination in California. If the goal is ultimately to become an alternating proprietor (AP) with a winery license, or an actual winery, we recommend this approach for brand incubation before committing to production equipment and the costs and complexities of an AP or a facility.

For the scenario where a custom crush 17/20 intends to take advantage of the winery’s DTC permits, the relationships between the parties must be carefully structured to operate within the confines of the law, with the winery retaining title to the wine shipped under its permits, and the 17/20 acting as a TPP. This requires a good, clear, contract. A good contract provides a mechanism to not only resolve disputes between the parties, it prevents an aggrieved party in a later dispute from claiming that the underlying relationship was unlawful and therefore the contract between the parties is unenforceable.

Full Service Route to Market Contracts

Sometimes, wineries themselves are not aware of the limitations on their own license privileges and their relationships with non-licensees. We have seen well intentioned wineries offer their clients a full suite of services, including winemaking, brand consulting and turn-key route to market strategies for a cut of the profits from wine sales.

The tricky aspect of these relationships is that ABC has not drawn a clear line distinguishing lawful arrangements from unlawful ones. Wineries can provide services to licensees and non-licensees alike, including brand strategy and consulting services. Wineries cannot perform services that amount to renting out their licenses, and they cannot share profits with non-licensees. Therefore, the extent to which these contracts are lawful is fact specific, and depends on what exactly the contract terms specify.

Licensing/Marketing Agreements

Another approach for brand owners is to never take title to the product, and instead sign Licensing/Marketing Agreements with wineries. These agreements (variations of the TPP relationship) license the brand owner’s intellectual property to the winery, and the brand owners receive compensation for providing marketing services to the winery to facilitate distribution of the products. The arrangements are a good choice for those who cannot hold supplier/wholesale tier licenses, or those who don’t want to bother. There are, however, limitations with this approach. Principally, the prohibition on profit sharing with non-licensees necessitates careful structuring of the compensation portion of the agreements between brand owners and wineries to ensure they don’t cross the regulatory line.

Enforcement

And now the $64,000 question, is this an enforcement priority for ABC? What is the potential liability? Regarding the former question, we are seeing California ABC investigate these relationships with increasing frequency, and we expect more inquiries into these relationships as ABC and the federal authorities understand the number of problematic relationships out there.

The potential liability question is more complicated. ABC has jurisdiction over licensed wineries, and actions against winery licensees have taken the form of fines and license suspensions (revocation is on the table for egregious or deliberate violators). ABC, however, does not have jurisdiction over non-licensees, and would have to engage another agency such as the Attorney’ General’s office to prosecute non-licensees for the sale of alcohol without a license (a criminal misdemeanor in California). This makes it harder for ABC to follow-up on non-licensees, but they could find an example as a warning to the industry. No one wants to be that example.

The other form of liability is contractual responsibility for the failed relationship; and damages. While who a court would find liable if a dispute occurs is a fact specific exercise, that one party was licensed and the other wasn’t would probably resolve for the unlicensed party on the theory that the licensee (as the one responsible for compliance) should have known better.

Another complicated question arises if the unlicensed entity becomes licensed, or is seeking licenses, when the ABC comes knocking. ABC’s Trade Enforcement Unit could hold up license issuance pending an investigation, could ultimately deny licensure based on the unlawful relationship and could file an accusation after the license issues to seek fines and penalties short of revocation.

Best Practices

As with most business endeavors, there is no one-size fits all approach regarding contract winemaking, AP agreements, TPP agreements or brand development. Every situation is unique, and requires a different structure to best utilize the strengths of each party to the venture. Each relationship must be considered carefully in the context of the parties’ goals to comply with the regulations applicable to licensees, and to the prohibitions against selling alcohol without a license.

That all being true, if the new wine industry member takes the time to analyze the goals it has against properly structured relationships, the process will be relatively painless (lawyers and regulators notwithstanding), and should be a lot fun.

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