2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III

By Rebecca Stamey-White and Erin Kelleher

It’s round three in our legislative updates for 2016.  Part three gets into the meat of licensing, qualification and tied-house ownership, our favorite issues!

THIRD COURSE: LICENSING, QUALIFICATION & TIED-HOUSE OWNERSHIP ISSUES

ABC qualification relief, but no tied-house changes, for private equity investors  (SB 796: 23405.4)

Investors (and not just private equity investors) have struggled in California to legally make investments in licensed businesses largely for two reasons. First, upper tier investors are loathe to provide personal information and qualify with ABC, largely due to privacy concerns. Second, generally speaking, there is no de minimus exception to the California tied-house laws. Thus, an investor might have a passive investment in a fund which holds retail interests, which could prevent them from making another passive investment in a fund which holds supplier interests. ABC has struggled with these issues, out of a legitimate desire to know the ultimate owners of a licensee. The limited partners in a fund, which might technically be the ultimate "owners" of a license, however, generally do not have an active role in the management of the fund or the licensee. Further, they might not even know what investments the fund makes at all. So why qualify them or prevent them from making an investment in a licensee?

SB 796 attempts to address the first problem regarding qualification, but does not address the second and larger problem regarding the tied-house laws. Specifically, the statute will not require qualification (but still requires compliance with the tied-house laws--an important distinction of which to be mindful) of an investor in a private equity fund, provided:

  • The fund's interest is passive (no involvement with the licensee's business);
  • The fund's advisors are registered under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and are subject to federal reporting requirements;
  • The investor holds less than 10% of the fund (not the licensee); and
  • The investor has no control in the investment decisions of the fund.

SB 796 does not apply to hedge funds, liquidity funds, REITS, securitized asset funds or VC funds. Why not? Good question--though it is consistent with other legislative changes to the code governing alcoholic beverage licensees; that is, hyper-specific and very limited.

ABC may require the manager of the fund to execute an affidavit confirming compliance with the conditions above and affirming that the investors not being qualified do not have interests that would violate the tied-house laws. Importantly, if the manager does not have direct knowledge of any facts necessary to execute the affidavit, the statute requires them to make a direct inquiry of investors, and requires notification if any of the attested-to facts change. Ostensibly, this creates an ongoing investigation and reporting obligation of the fund.

The statute clearly states that it is not intended to permit someone from making an investment through a private equity fund in a license if such investment is not otherwise permitted. Therefore, the statute does not address the larger and more difficult problem of passive investments in licensees and the tied-house laws. Thus, while qualification might be slightly easier, private equity funds will still be limited in how they can invest in licensees.

The Craft Distillers Act of 2015 (AB 1295: 23500, 23501, 23502, 23504, 23506, 23508, 23363.1, 23771 and 23772)

AB 1295 represents a big change in the industry, and could be a huge boon to folks looking to take advantage of the recent craft spirits craze that has swept the country. Historically, spirits have lagged behind wine and beer in terms of securing exceptions to the tied-house laws, which has made it more difficult for spirits products to get to the ultimate consumer without the backing of a major distributor. The new regulations not only create a new license type for small distillers, but also create tied-house exceptions that do not exist for their larger-production counterparts. These regulations do, however, amend the tasting provisions for spirits, which are applicable to large distillers as well.

  • Basic License Permissions and Limitations (23500, 23501, 23502, 23504, ABC Industry Advisory) 

The new craft distiller’s license (Type 74) will allow the production of no more than 100,000 gallons (liquid volume and not proof gallons) of distilled spirits per fiscal year (July 1 – June 30), excluding brandy that it manufactures or is manufactured for the licensee with a brandy manufacturer’s license. Fees and qualification will be the same as for Type 4 spirits producers. Craft Distillers must report their production volume to ABC when applying for an annual renewal, and if they exceed the production cap their license will be renewed as a Type 4.

They can package, rectify, mix, flavor, color, label and export only their own products. They will only be able to sell to wholesalers, manufacturers (and their agents), winegrowers and rectifiers that hold a license authorizing the sale of spirits. Thus, Craft Distillers cannot make sales to retailers–-however note the limited DTC exception for consumers outlined below.

  • Tastings (23363.1)

The tastings statute applicable to spirits now covers both large distillers and craft distillers. Like regular distilled spirits manufacturers, craft distillers will be able to conduct tastings and charge for them on their premises, subject to the following conditions:

  • Total volume of pours cannot exceed 1.5 oz per person, per day;
  • Tastings can only include products produced (or produced for) the licensee; and
  • Servers have to be at least 21.

The statute has been changed to allow the service of cocktails or mixed drinks at the tastings, however, note that licensees can only use product that they make or that they have made for them. Therefore, cocktail creativity here is limited (or, encourages companies to start making their own mixers, which could be good for everyone).

Tastings can occur off licensed premises as well, provided they take place within permitted events sponsored by a nonprofit organization. No sales or solicitations are permitted at these events.

  • Direct to Consumer Sales (23504)

Craft distillers can sell up to 2.25 liters of their pre-packaged product at instructional tastings that occur on the licensee’s premises pursuant to the tasting provision of 23363.1 outlined above. This represents a huge win for craft distillers attempting to get their products to market, as DTC sales of spirits to consumers have until now been barred by ABC.

  • Bona Fide Public Eating Place & Private Events (23506(c) and 23508)

Like their wine and beer making counterparts, Craft Distillers may also operate a bona fide public eating public place located on, or contiguous to, their licensed premises. However, they may also serve distilled spirits, which is a big difference from wineries or breweries, who may not. Additionally, Craft Distillers may also offer beer, wine and distilled spirits, regardless of source, for sale to guests during private events. All beverages sold on the premises that are not manufactured by or for the Craft Distiller must be purchased from a wholesaler.

If the Craft Distiller loses this designation and becomes a large distiller, they may continue have events on their premises. This is a huge win for Craft Distillers who wish to market their space for events for extra revenue, something that is has become quite popular for all types of manufacturers. However, the ABC advisory indicates that if the Craft Distiller becomes a large distiller, they do not get to keep operating the bona fide public eating place under their distiller license. The bona fide public eating place on the premises would have to have a separate on-sale license, which could raise some tied-house issues.

  • Tied-House (23502(b), 23771, 23772, ABC Industry Advisory) – No Interests with Large Manufacturers, Agents, Wholesalers or Rectifiers

Craft Distiller licenses cannot be held by anyone “affiliated,” directly or indirectly, with a person who manufactures (or has manufactured for them) more than 100,000 gallons of distilled spirits per year within or without California (excluding brandy it manufactures or has manufactured for it with a brandy manufacturer license). The term “affiliate” is not generally defined in the code, though it is sometimes defined within the specific section where the term is used. Not so in this case, leaving it ambiguous as to what exactly “affiliated” means in this context. Nonetheless, the main take-away here is that Craft Distillers cannot also have Type 4 licenses or Type 5 licenses (Distilled Spirits Manufacturer's Agent licenses) in California, and also that they cannot be affiliated with larger scale manufacturers of distilled spirits located outside of California.

Additionally, Craft Distiller licenses may not be issued to anyone “affiliated” with, directly or indirectly, a wholesaler. The same ambiguity exists here with respect to the meaning of “affiliate.” The prohibition appears to only to apply to wholesale interests in the state of California (Type 17 beer and wine wholesaler or Type 18 distilled spirits wholesaler), and not to wholesale interests in other states.

Because a Craft Distiller can package, rectify, mix, flavor, color, label and export only their own products, ABC has indicated that they cannot also hold a Rectifier’s (Type 07 or Type 24) license. Craft Distillers may however use grain-neutral spirits manufactured by another distiller in the manufacture of their product.  

  • Tied-House – Interests in On-Sale Licensees (23506)

Craft distillers, or one or more of their subsidiaries of which they own at least 51% who also manufactures or produce, bottle, process, import or sell distilled spirits under a craft distiller’s license “or any other license issued pursuant this division” may hold an ownership interest in, or have a “financial or representative relationship” in up to two on-sale licensees.

Before we discuss the conditions on this important tied-house exception, we wanted to address some of the language in this statute. First, it is unclear what ABC means by the phrase “or any other license issued pursuant to this division.” This could allow Craft Distillers who have subsidiaries with other licenses to partake of this exception, where they otherwise would not have been able to do so. Second, “financial or representative relationship” is broader than the similar exception for winery interests in on-sale licensees found in 25503.15, meaning that not just ownership of the retailer is at issue for the tied-house analysis, but also the broader relationship of the Craft Distiller and the retailer.

The exception does contain a wholesaler poison pill, requiring the on-sale licensee to make all alcohol purchases (including wine and beer) from California wholesalers, except for those spirits which are made by or for the interested Craft Distiller. This could be a deal breaker for many on-sale licensees. Additionally, the number of spirits by brand offered by the off-sale licensees are limited to 15% of those produced by the interested Craft Distiller.

Importantly, this exception is not lost if the Craft Distiller eventually exceeds the production cap and becomes a regular large distiller.

Pedicabs get licenses (SB 530), no luck for beauty salons (AB 1322)

While clearly we all need to find out more about pedicabs, which can apparently carry up to 15 passengers and still qualify as pedicabs (our minds are spinning, meaning we may need to go to spin class more often), passengers may also now consume alcohol in pedicabs without requiring a license by the pedicab from the ABC. These pedicab operators must receive LEAD training from ABC and may not “sell, serve, or furnish” these beverages, but provided all the passengers are 21+, the passengers may serve themselves while enjoying the ride.

Other possible licensees or exceptions to the rule were not as lucky as the pedicab operators. A bill to provide an ABC licensing exception to beauty salons to enable them to provide alcoholic beverages incidental to the service of beauty treatments did not pass. We have a feeling the long-standing practice will not entirely go away, since it's been happening without this exception in place for many years (shhh! We ladies need our champagne!).

Larger brewers join small brewers in exception permitting on-sale retail license ownership (SB 796: 25503.28)

25503.28 used to allow only small beer manufacturers (those producing 60,000 barrels a year or less) to have an interest in up to 6 on-sale licenses, and now that privilege has been extended to large beer manufacturers in California as well.

The new privilege cannot be combined with the existing privilege under 23389(c) which allows beer manufacturers to sell their beer at 6 branch locations, 2 of which may be bona fide public eating places selling wine in addition to beer. Thus, a beer manufacturer (regardless of the number of licenses they hold alone, in common ownership with another beer manufacturer, or under common ownership with anyone operating as a on-sale retailer), may exercise on-sale retail privileges at premises where they do not manufacture beer at no more than 6 locations. Despite this, there is still no limit on the number of manufacturer locations, or the exercise of retail privileges at those locations.

Beer specifically added to non-profit temporary licenses (AB 774: 24045.6 and 25607.5)

Beer was specifically added to the statute permitting nonprofits to obtain special temporary on-sale and off-sale licenses for fundraising activities. While there are a variety of temporary off-sale licenses available for nonprofits, we most commonly see the combination of the licenses covered by 24045.1 (the on-sale general license, usually used for full bars at nonprofit fundraisers) and 24045.4 (the off-sale license that permits nonprofits to auction off bottles of wine). 24045.6 could be used by a nonprofit hosting an event featuring on-site consumption and also selling alcohol donated to it for off-sale consumption (but not using a silent or live auction to do it).  Most commonly, this privilege is used by nonprofit wine varietal or regional organizations who might conduct larger wine tastings and also sell wine donated to it by wineries participating in the event or who make special blends as a private label for the organization.  Previously, the statute was limited to wine, but now nonprofits can receive donated beer as well for their fundraising events under this section, which likely means we’ll see more beer association events structured like the wine association events.

Beer label approval no longer required by ABC, however brands must be registered with ABC prior to sale (AB 893:25200, 25201 and 25204)

Beer manufacturers and certificate of compliance holders are no longer required to furnish labels of beer containers to ABC, however every beer manufacturer, before the first sale of a brand of beer in California, must register the brand with ABC. Form 412 has been amended and is now titled the Beer Brand Registration Form. Manufacturers do not have to register brands that currently have accepted labels on file with ABC. ABC will not send a response to the brand registration form, and licensees may submit malt beverage price schedules and territorial agreements simultaneously with brand registration forms.

25200 was repealed and replaced with a provision that governs beer labels and brand registration, as well as alcohol content labeling previously included in 25204 (which has been repealed). Beer labels must meet federal malt beverage labeling regulations, and must also include:

  • the brand and class or type of beer;
  • the manufacturer’s name (can be a DBA) and address (if the beer is a collaborative effort, everyone must be identified);
  • the bottler (if other than the manufacturer); and
  • a statement of alcohol content if the beer is over 5.7% ABV.

Provisions on growlers used to be contained in 25200, but are now addressed in a separate and new section 25201. Although the citation is new, the law has not changed. 

If you're full of legislative updates, don't worry, we'll have a post next week that will help bring back your appetite! Have a great weekend!

Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity

Many wineries that ship direct to consumer (DTC) in Arizona have received compliance notices from the AZ Dept. of Liquor Licenses and Control (DLLC), seeking to audit how much wine they produce to assure compliance under Arizona’s byzantine DTC laws. 

What’s going on in Arizona?

People are wondering, what’s going on in Arizona? According to the DLLC the step-up in enforcement is due to a recently-implemented new reporting mechanism developed with input from the industry to make it easier for wineries to do their reporting (which is not a new requirement), and for the state to track that reporting.  To streamline the process, reporting is now done online (via this page).

Arizona has the dubious distinction of having some of the most complicated direct shipping rules in the country.  We thought it might be helpful if we broke them down and made them a little easier to understand for non-Arizona wineries (and tiny distillers – you too can ship direct!):

The Production Requirements – What are they?

The bottom line is that the amount of alcohol produced per calendar year by the licensee with the permit is the basis for the Arizona direct shipping rules.  It’s best to be a very small winery, and the requirement to be licensed is measured on a facility by facility basis. Each individual winery (regardless of common ownership by a parent company) counts as one permittee.  If the winery produces between 200 gallons/year and 20,000 gallons/year and obtains an Out of State Farm Winery license from the DLLC, the winery will be allowed to ship any amount of wine that the winery produces or manufactures to an Arizona individual, regardless of whether they purchased the wine in person at the winery, or over the Internet, phone or other method.  Wineries in this category are also allowed to sell direct to trade (i.e. to Arizona retailers, both on- and off-premise). 

Craft Distillers are included in the DTC program

Small craft distillers may take advantage of this privilege:  A craft distiller producing no more than 1,189 gallons/year (and obtaining an Out of State Craft Distillery license), may ship any amount of their products directly to AZ residents who order it via Internet or any other method, as well as directly to AZ retailers. This is an important privilege.

What about the larger wineries?  Now it gets confusing. The 8,333 to 16,600 case winery restrictions

It a winery produces between 20,000 and 40,000 gallons (16,666 9L cases of wine) per year, it is still eligible for a Farm Winery permit, but the winery can only ship its wine to an Arizona resident who had at some point visited and made an in-person purchase at the winery with the permit, and the winery is limited to shipping 2 cases per individual per year.  The winery must keep records that can back up the in-person visit, such as a signature and ID-verification in a logbook, etc., as Arizona requires such records to be kept for two years.   This is where the audit comes into play, as the state audits the production limits, the visit requirement and 2 cases per year requirement.

How about the big wineries, can they do anything?

Yes. Although wineries that produce over 40,000 gallons/year are not eligible for the Farm Winery Permit, if they hold any other license in Arizona (such as an Out of State Producer license for shipping to Arizona wholesalers), they don’t need any additional license in order to ship DTC, though they still must follow the in-person purchase rule and the 2-case per person per year rule.

This is important: The DLLC interprets the in-person purchase requirement to mean that the person must visit the winery, at some point (and the winery must have records to back this up), but does not require that person to place each subsequent order in-person at the winery. The winery is required to keep records for two years, but in order to keep shipping directly to a person beyond the two-year period, the winery would need to have a record of that person's on-site purchase (which may reach back more than two years). Again, this is subject to audit.    

General Requirements

For all of the direct shipment methods described above, age verification at time of purchase is required.  Additionally, products cannot be shipped to a licensed premises but only to an individual for personal use; the delivery person must be at least 21; and the packaging must contain language identifying the contents as alcohol and that an adult signature is required.  And last but not least, shipment reports are required from both the shipping winery and the carrier that shipped the product.

Finally, the Arizona Direct Shipment Permit

And finally, there is what’s called a Direct Shipment permit in Arizona – but it’s not at all what it sounds like, and is a last resort.  It is for any winery that holds no other licenses in Arizona and wishes to ship DTC to consumers who have not visited the winery in person. It allows an out of state winery to take orders via Internet or any other method from and ship to a consumer, but the shipment must go through an Arizona wholesaler and retailer, and the retailer must be the one who makes the delivery to the consumer.  Cumbersome? Yes.  Does anyone do this?  Probably not many large wineries take advantage of this dubious solution.

What’s next?

There are rumblings that the confusing DTC situation in Arizona may be cleared up with legislation next year, so stay tuned.  However if you get an audit letter, read this blog post (and the requirements in the audit letter) carefully and make sure that you are eligible for the shipping method that you are using.  Failure to properly comply carries potentially serious consequences.

 

Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft

The New York State Liquor Authority has been busy working on a series of statutory revisions that are intended to revise and streamline the provisions of the NY ABC law governing manufacturing and wholesale licenses. Retailers will also be affected. The SLA plans to submit the proposals to the Governor (who has announced he will be introducing a bill this session to address supplier issues) for his consideration, and held a meeting on April 17 to get input from the industry on the proposed revisions. Stay tuned for an update on the final outcome of this process because the politics and the lobbying from all sides may be fierce; especially over provisions softening the three-tier system in NY.  In the meantime, here are some highlights from the 122-page proposed legislation in its current form:

DTC:  Direct to consumer shipment rights would be extended to craft brewers and craft cider producers.  In addition, any producer with a NY direct shipping permit (winery, brewery or cider producer) would be able to ship products produced by others, in addition to their own, so long as those other producers were located within a 50-mile radius of the shipping producer. The 50-mile radius requirement is interesting because, for example, it would bring most (if not all) of Napa and Sonoma, for example, into the shipping radius for one winery.

Supplier Tastings: The bill would expand the categories of applicants eligible for marketing permits, which allow the holder to conduct tastings and bottle sales at other locations, to certain suppliers and “brand owners.”  Licensed wholesalers and importers would be allowed to obtain a “distributor’s tasting permit” for consumer tastings. “Brand owner” is not defined in the current version, and is likely to spark a battle if it includes, for example, foreign producers, celebrities, and non-producers.

Special Events: Manufacturers and “brand owners” would be able to obtain a permit to sell wine, beer or cider by the glass at special events.

Retailer Tastings:  Grocery stores licensed to sell beer would be able to conduct consumer beer tastings, though all beer poured must be from kegs, not bottles or cans. (The keg requirement was apparently intended to provide some assurance to certain local jurisdictions that have experienced problems with open container violations, though the SLA did indicate that it could be changed down the road if grocery beer tastings go smoothly in the interim).

Wine Growlers:  Retailers would be able to sell wine in growlers.  There is no indication yet how the legislation would address the fact that the TTB currently requires a federal basic permit as a tax-paid bottling house for a retailer to sell growlers; perhaps there would be an exemption provided in the final enabling legislation.

The significance of these proposed measures lies in their potential effect on the three-tier system, not just in NY but in every state that looks to NY for guidance.  Will the proposed changes be viewed by the distribution tier as an attack on their privileges, or as reasonable measures designed to facilitate routes to market for small producers?

  1. Decoding the BCC’s Guidance on Commercial Cannabis Activity.
  2. Prop 65 - Escaping a "Notice of Violation"
  3. TTB Consignment Sales Investigations - What is Behind the Curtain of the TTB Press Releases?
  4. Heads Up! The ABC Is Stepping Up Enforcement Against Licensees Located Near Universities
  5. Coming Soon: New Mandatory Training Requirements for over One Million “Alcohol Servers” In California – September 1, 2021 will be here quickly
  6. 2019 Legislative Changes for California Alcohol Producers – a Blessing or a Curse?
  7. A Picture (On Instagram) Is Worth A Thousand Words
  8. Playing by the Rules: California Cannabis Final Regulations Takeaways
  9. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Names Erin Kelleher Partner and Welcomes Gillian Garrett and Tsion “Sunshine” Lencho to the Firm
  10. Congress Makes History and Changes the CBD Game for Good
  11. Pernicious Practices (stuff we see that will get folks in trouble!) Today’s Rant – Bill & Hold
  12. CBD: An Exciting New Fall Schedule… or Not?
  13. MISSISSIPPI RISING - A VICTORY FOR LEGAL RETAILER TO CONSUMER SALES, AND PASSAGE OF TITLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
  14. California ABC's Cannabis Advisory - Not Just for Stoners
  15. NEW CALIFORNIA WARNINGS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 30, 2018, NOW INCLUDING ADDENDUM REGARDING 2014 CONSENT AGREEMENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
  16. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  17. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  18. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  19. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  20. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  21. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  22. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  23. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  24. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  25. ‘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
  26. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  27. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  28. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  29. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  30. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  31. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  32. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  33. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  34. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  35. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  36. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  37. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  38. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  39. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  40. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  41. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  42. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  43. 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
  44. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  45. 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
  46. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  47. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  48. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  49. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  50. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  51. 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
  52. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  53. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  54. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  55. 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
  56. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  57. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  58. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  59. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  60. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  61. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  62. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  63. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  64. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  65. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  66. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  67. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  68. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  69. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  70. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  71. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  72. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  73. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  74. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  75. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  76. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  77. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  78. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  79. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  80. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  81. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  82. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  83. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  84. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  85. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  86. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  87. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  88. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  89. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  90. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  91. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  92. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  93. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  94. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  95. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  96. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  97. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  98. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  99. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  100. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale