Alcohol retailers and wineries (both online and brick and mortar) as well as shipping companies need to do a better job of assuring that their products are not sold to nor arrive in the hands of minors. As a new North Carolina Chapel Hill Study released this week showed, minors can too easily buy and obtain alcohol online. The upside of the results of this study is that the problem, the the extent that it exists in the real world, can easily be addressed.

Wineries and retailers that sell online should, if they have not already, invest in online age verification systems that work. Many already have. Still, as consumers continue to migrate to online commerce, more wineries and more retailers should be investing in technology that helps verify that the remote buyer is of age. 

Additionally, shipping companies need to be vigorous in their training of employees who are checking IDs when delivering alcohol. A policy of continued training of drivers will pay dividends not only socially, but economically. 

However, where minors access to alcohol via Internet sales is concerned, one thing is clear: Minors don’t buy online. This crucial fact that ought to drive policy considerations and allocation of state resources on the issue of enforcement was not brought to light in the North Carolina Chapel Hill study. It should have been. Every study that looks at where minors obtain alcohol shows that “online” is never a part of the equation. A recent look at the issue by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) demonstrated that minors reported obtaining alcohol in the following ways:

1. From a parent, guardian or family member who is 21 or older (26 percent)
2. From someone 21 or older who is not related to the teen (25 percent)
3. From someone under 21 who is not related to the teen (22 percent)
4. Took it from home (10 percent)
5. Took it from someone else’s home (5 percent)

“Online” is not on the list for the simple reason that when not aided by researchers, minors have for more ready sources for quick access to alcohol, and they use them. 

In the limited number of media outlets that covered the released of the Chapel Hill North Carolina study results, too often the researchers themselves suggested or said that online sales to minors were a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. This should indicate even to the casual observer that the motivation behind the study was to limit online alcohol sales, even though it has meant a boon for adult consumers, a new source of tax income for states and a new sales channel aiding the economic viability of wineries and retailers.

So yes, online alcohol vendors like wineries and retailers as well as the shipping companies that deliver their goods should take measures to make it difficult for minors to use the Internet to obtain alcohol. However, let’s not kid ourselves or try to kid anyone else: Minors don’t buy alcohol online.

WEEKLY NEWS FOR RETAILERS

Buying Alcohol Online? It’s Not Hard for Minors
The LA Times reports on a study out of North Caroline Chapel Hill that showed 45 out of 100 orders made by minors ended up being delivered to the minors. Click to read more…

Minors Don’t Buy Wine Online
While a recent study showed minor are, under certain circumstances, able to purchase alcohol online and have it delivered, the fact remains that minors don’t buy wine online. This blog post explains why by profiling the plight of Little Pete. Click to read more…

Pennsylvania House Committee Sends Direct Shipping Bill to a Vote in Full House: NO Retailers May Apply
The Pennsylvania House Liquor Control Committee voted 24-1 to favorably report HB 845 to the full house. The bill would allow out of state wineries, but not retailers, to ship wine to Pennsylvanians. The original bill, before being amended, would have allowed out of state retailers to ship also. Click to read more…

On Allowing Wine To Be Sold in Maryland Grocery Stores: A Perspective
A “kerfuffle” over a proposal for wine sales in groceries in Maryland exposes the various interests in play when reasonable consumer access laws are considered. Click to read more…

Wine Prices Remain Relatively Low Because of Sluggish Economy
More reporting and background on the state of the economy and where alcohol retailing fits in. Click to read more…

Weekly Commentary:
STABBING YOUR BEST CUSTOMERS IN THE BACK

We were not completely surprised, though still disheartened, to read the that the head of the most prominent wine wholesaler association in America call its best customers (retailers) black marketeers and tax cheats. In a BBC Online article, Wine and Spirit Wholesaler of America (WSWA) head Craig Wolf reacted to the idea of retailer-to-consumer shipment of wines with simple derision of wine retailers across the country, coming straight out and suggesting wine retailers cannot be trusted:

“It’s a black market because you don’t have the regulatory power to find out who is ordering from where. Once you open the door to direct shipping and you don’t go through a licensed wholesaler, you don’t know whether taxes are being paid, whether minors are getting alcohol, and you don’t know if it’s an illegal source.”

Oddly, this insulting and dismissive view of wholesalers’ most important customers comes just a few weeks after the WSWA’s annual convention at which the WSWA called for all tiers of the alcohol industry to come together and work together to achieve common interests. It’s hard to imagine that Mr. Wolf and the WSWA expects this kind of attitude to ingratiate them with retailers anywhere in the country. 

Unfortunately, this anti-retailer attitude expressed by America’s wine wholesalers is not a new turn of events. For the past two years WSWA worked hard to see passed through Congress a bill that would have stripped every American wine retailer of their constitutional guarantee to be free of state-based discriminatory laws. House Resolution 5034, introduced in 2010 was followed by H.R. 1161, introduced in 2011. The blatantly anti-retailer legislation was understood by nearly everyone as nothing more than wholesalers attempting to run roughshod over retailers, as well as producers, in an attempt to pass federal legislation that protects wholesalers from competition. It appears wholesalers have given up on passing this legislation, while their attack on retailers obviously continues.

Wholesalers successfully lobby at the state level to get protection from competition, such as out-of-state retailers shipping wine directly to consumers. This is their prerogative. However, when they try to to coat this special interest legislation in a veneer of concern for alcohol’s role in society, they come off as cynical promoters of half truths. Worse is when wholesalers come right out and accuse their most important customers, retailers, of being black marketeers and tax cheats.

Until wine wholesalers begin to treat retailers with respect, stop calling them names and release retailers from the pressure of their rhetorical and political jackboots, retailers are unlikely to give any consideration to any agenda wine wholesalers may want to bring the industry together to promote. 

WEEKLY NEWS FOR WINE RETAILERS

U.S. Alcohol Retailers Find Law Changes Hard To Swallow
In a BBC On line article that looks across the pond to evaluate the state of American alcohol regulations, American wine wholesalers tell of the dangers of direct shipping and paste the label of “bootleggers” on their best customers: wine retailers. Click to read more…

Federal Trade Commission to Review Online Alcohol Marketing
The Federal Trade Commission has asked a number of alcohol producers from wineries to brewers to retailers to hand over information about their digital marketing efforts including their Twitter “tweets”. The FTC has not, as far as is known, asked retailers to hand over any marketing materials. Click to read more…

Anti-Alcohol Watchdog Group Calls for Investigation of Campaigns to Promote Moderate Drinking
Alcohol Justice, an alcohol industry watchdog group that sometimes works hand in hand with wine wholesalers, is asking the states’ attorneys general to investigate the various alcohol beverage industry’s “Drink Responsibly” ad campaigns, calling them “cynical” and “deceptive. Click to read more

 Why Can’t the Post Office Ship Beer and Wine?
Time Magazine’s Josh Sanburn examines the history behind the current—and perhaps ending—ban on the U.S. Post Office shipping wine and beer, speaking with the Postmaster General and the Specialty Wine Retailers Association. Click to read more...

Reacting to Wine Fraud
Jancis Robinson, in the wake of the Rudy Kurniawan counterfeit scandal looks at the reaction of those both buying and selling precious and collectible wines. Click to read more…

WEEKLY COMMENTARY…
Wine Retailers, The Post Office and the 21st Century

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate finally passed a bill that would reform the U.S. Post Office, a branch of the federal government that while seemingly essential, had fallen on hard times as more and more correspondence moved electronically and private common carriers took over much of the shipping business. Among the provisions in the bill was one that would allow the U.S. Postal service to ship wine from wineries and, importantly, wine retailers to the consumer. Interestingly, the inclusion of retailers in the bill almost never happened.

It should be noted that before Senate Bill 1789 becomes law, it must first pass through the gauntlet of the House of Representatives, where it could be modified significantly or even die. And if the bill passes, it must be reconciled with the Senate bill. Yet, despite the obstacles, we deem the odds of the wine shipping provision remaining in the bill to be good.

The original Senate bill did not include a provision to allow wine merchants and retailers to utilize the U.S.P.S. to ship wine. Only wineries would have be given that privilege.  The exclusion of retailers from the original bill was short-cited, but pleasing to opponents of retailer wine shipping. Yet, there was no coherent argument for leaving prohibiting wine retailers from utilizing newly granted U.S.P.S. wine shipping. In fact, by doing so, the U.S.P.S. would have been leaving significant revenue on the table as more and more consumers look to wine retailers to overcome the the fact it is often very difficult and often impossible to find the wines they want from local stores, while these wines are almost always available in other states.

These were the arguments that the Specialty Wine Retailers Association made in convincing the committees working on the bill to include an amendment that allows retailers as well as wineries to ship wine via the U.S.P.S. The inclusion of retailers in the Senate bill is important for another reason: the federal government has no business discriminating against retailers as so many states have chosen to do at the behest of wholesalers who too often control the creation of alcohol regulation in the various states for their own benefit. 

If Senate Bill 1798 passes with the wine shipping provision in tact, it will be a step toward bringing the U.S.P.S into the 21st century and will be a symbolic blow to those members of the alcohol industry that choose discrimination and protectionism over inclusion and common sense.

WEEKLY NEWS FOR RETAILERS

Senate Passes Postal Reform Bill Allowing Wine and Beer to be Shipped from Wineries and Retailers
Senate Bill 1789, which reforms how the U.S. Post Office conducts its affairs, passed the Senate on Wednesday. The bill includes a provision that would allow the U.S.P.S. to compete with Federal Express and United Parcel Service in the shipment of wine to consumers. Click to read more…

Silicon Valley Bank Issues Annual State of the Wine Industry Report
Late last week Silicon Valley Bank issued its annual “State of the Industry Report” in which the lender to the wine industry predicted a shortfall in grapes and with this short fall, along with rising demand for wine, an increase in bottle prices for California wines. The outstanding report is filled with much more is a a “must read”. Click to read more…

The Buyer Behind Costco’s Billion Dollar Wine Business
Costco’s wine buyer, Annette Alvarez-Peters , was featured on CNBC where she disclosed how she and her team choose wines for the largest wine seller in the United States. Click to read more..

Wine Wholesalers “State of the Industry” Press Conference Reveals Fear of Losing Control
At a press conference in Washington, D.C. billed as a “State of the Industry” discussion, the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America convened a panel to take on privatization and in the process revealed a supreme fear of losing control of the process that generates alcohol distribution regulations. Click to read more…

The New World of Online Wine
A fascinating infographic outlines and details the rise of online “flash sites” and their impact on the wine industry as more and more third party marketers make their way into the world of wine. Click to read more…

April 19, 2012

Key Report Predicts Higher Grape and Wine Prices Going Forward
Silicon Valley Bank issued its annual report on the State of the Wine industry this week and predicted that conditions are ripe for an recovery for grape growers, a short supply of grapes and and increase in retail wine prices. The substantial report, which is also good reading, often sets perceptions of the industry going forward. Click to read more…

Beer & Wine Wholesalers Behind Groups Push for Voter ID Laws
Reports that the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America were important participants in the group that crafted a number of Voter ID laws across the country have many scratching their heads. Click to  read more…

Supreme Court to Rule on Legitimacy of “Grey Market” and “Grey Market Goods”
The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case during its fall session that examines grey market imports—in this case, concerning text books. However, the case may have implications for the wine industry and retailers, many of which are involved in importing grey market wines. Click to read more…

Michigan Breweries and Wineries Want Change to Monopolistic Distribution Laws
Breweries and wineries in Michigan are hoping the committee the Governor called to consider changes in Michigan’s alcohol regulatory structure will reform the monopolistic laws in that state that protect wholesalers from competition and stifle industry growth. Click to read more…

Postal Reform Act in Congress To Be Amended to Allow Retailers to Use the USPS to Ship Wine
A managers amendment to the Senate’s Postal Reform Act will be adopted that changes the original wording of the bill from only allowing producers to use the USPS to ship wine to allowing retailers also to ship wine. The bill remains a contentious issue on Capital Hill and is a ways off from passing, but this amendment represents a victory for retailers and consumers. Click to read more…

Direct Alcohol Shipping is Not a Public Safety Problem
Michelle Minton of the Competitive Enterprise Institute makes the compelling case that the direct shipping of alcohol poses no risk for minors accessing the product and that laws based on this fear should be repealed. Click to read more…

WEEKLY COMMENTARY:
On Wine Retailers and Postal Reform
The 21st Century Postal Reform Act (S.1789) now being debated on Capital Hill is an attempt to address systemic and financial problems with America’s postal system. Cost and profitability issues have plagued the U.S.P.S. Among the provisions in the bill is one that would change Federal law to allow the U.S.P.S. to ship alcohol, something it has been prohibited from doing for years, thereby giving up that part of the shipping business primarily to UPS and FedEx.

The original bill address alcohol shipping by providing that only wineries and breweries would be able to use U.S.P.S. to ship wine. For some reason, it was determined that retailers, the entities primarily responsible for getting alcohol into the hands of consumers would not be allowed to use the system.

We recently learned that the substitute amendment to S.1789, which would make several changes to the original bill, now included provisions that allowed producers AND retailers to utilize the U.S.P.S. to ship wine. This is an important improvement on the bill for retailers, consumers and the postal service.

We applaud those lawmakers and committee staff that made a successful effort to get this new language in the amendments to S.1789. Discrimination against any one sector of the alcohol beverage trade is not the business that the federal government wants to be in. Still, as the bill is still being debated and amended and given that so many stakeholders have an interest in Postal reform, the Specialty Wine Retailers Association will be watching the process closely to assure that special interests do not try to discriminate against America’s wine retailers and prevent the postal service from reaping the economic benefits of fully participating in the alcohol shipment business.

Foxy Wine Wholesalers Ask Hens To Give Up The Hen House
Wine wholesalers ask retailers and producers to work with them on a common agenda now that they lost the battle over the CARE Act and Privatization in Washington State. Click to read more

Will Washington State’s Spirits Privatization Move Wine Off Retail Shelves?
Some in Washington State are speculating that less room will be available for wine as spirits come to groceries and wine and liquor outlets in Washington, though specialty wine retailers may benefit. Click to read more

Wine Store Enhances Customer Experience With App
Hi Times Wine Cellars in Costa Mesa, California is giving their customers more information about store inventory via a new app. Click to read more

Total Wine Offers Details of Their Move Into Dallas Market
With the goal of doubling its sales to $2 Billion within five years, Total Wine is set to open its 80th store nationwide when it moves into the Dallas market. Click to read more.

Pennsylvania Senate Passes Out Wine Shipping Bill 48-0
The Pennsylvania Senate passed a wine shipping bill 48-0 recently, yet the bill has some problems. Click to read more

WEEKLY COMMENTARY
If you read the above article about Pennsylvania passing direct shipping legislation out of the Senate, you will have noted that the chief sponsor of the bill in the PA Senate, Larry Farnese, said “he was disappointed by the approval of a late-surfacing amendment that limited sales to domestic wines and excluded those from overseas.” He went on to note that the legislation shuts out “90 percent of the world’s wine” and that “the people of Pennsylvania are really getting less than what they should be getting.”

What Senator Farnese is referring to is the fact that after PA wholesalers and PA alcohol regulators got done lobbying lawmakers, the provision in the bill that would have allowed PA wine lovers to have wine shipped to them from out-of-state wine stores, Internet retailers, wine clubs and auction houses was stripped from the bill. Another way to understand this common “compromise” when direct shipping legislation is proposed is to realize that only wine retailers are able to sell imported wines in the United States. When retailers are shut out of the direct shipping market, all imported wines are shut out of the direct shipping market.

This notion of allowing domestic wines to be shipped into a state but prohibiting imported wines from being shipped to a states consumers looks like product discrimination to us. More importantly, since the PA state stores are now shipping wine to its state consumers, we know for a fact that not allowing out of state retailers to do the same is commercial discrimination and a violation of the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause. 

 It’s cynical. 

The news is that this bill is unlikely to pass through the PA House because in that chamber it is being tied to legislation that reforms the entire alcohol distribution and sales system in PA, which is run by state. Nonetheless, SWRA cannot support this legislation in its current form. Nor should PA consumers or other members of the alcohol beverage trade if they have any  concern for free trade and the interests of consumers.

HB 6644 was introduced in response to a recent court decision in Michigan that, once again, found the state’s wine shipping laws out of compliance with the U.S. Constitution. Michigan improperly allowed its own wine merchants to ship wine to Michigan residents, but barred out of state retailers from doing the same. The State has appealed the case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, but apparently has realized they have little chance of winning. So, instead of doing the proper thing for the people of Michigan and opening the state to will-regulated direct sales by out of state retailers, the Liquor Control Commission took the suggestion of wholesalers and went to work “leveling down” by barring its own wine retailers from shipping any wine.

The problem is that their explanations for why this is necessary have no basis in fact”

“if hundreds of thousands of unregulated out-of-state retailers are permitted to ship beer and wine to Michigan residents, there’s a likelihood that alcohol will be delivered to underage customers.”
Ken Wozniak, Director of Executive Services, Michigan Liquor control commission.

Mr. Wozniak is talking off the top of his head.

-Had he looked at other states that actually issue permits to out of state retailers and wineries to ship wine into a state he would have found that no more than 20% of all permits issued go to retailers, the rest go to wineries.

- Had Mr. Wozniak done a little research he would have found that no alcohol regulatory official in America and no law enforcement official in America has ever state they have a problems with underage customers obtaining alcohol from via direct shipment.

Then there is this:

” the state eventually could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that goes to school aid and other purposes. “
Ken Wozniak, Director of Executive Services, Michigan Liquor control commission.

Had Mr. Wozniak done his homework instead of passing off the wholesaler-provided talking points he would have known that in every state that begins issuing permits to out-of-state retailers to ship wine into the state, tax revenues in those states GO UP afterwards.

When businesses’ rights are taken away and when consumers’ rights to access the market are stripped, one would hope that all this is done on the basis of sound information. Not the case in Michigan.

Will Michigan officials actually look into these issues? Will the sponsors of HB 6644 ask the Liquor Control Commission to explain their misunderstandings?

Recently the Michigan Attorney General announced they would appeal the Michigan Federal District Court ruling in the case of Siesta Village Market v. Granholm. This was the case in which Judge Donna Page Hood declared that Michigan’s unequal treatment of in-state and out-of-state wine merchants where shipping wine directly to Michigan consumers is concerned violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the state could give the court no compelling reason why its blatant discrimination against out-of-state business was the only way to protect state interests. The judge noted that the Supreme Court of the United States had already rejected the reasons the State of Michigan had put forth for defending their discriminatory and anti-consumer regulations.

As was pointed out yesterday in a well argued announcement, one very simple, productive and pro-consumer way of dealing with the unconstitutional nature of the Michigan laws concerning out-of-state retailer shipping into Michigan would be to simply create licenses that out-of-state retailers could obtain from the state that required them to file reports with the state on what was shipped to consumers, to assure a signature of an adult was obtained at the point of delivery, to remit sales taxes to the state and to submit themselves to Michigan legal jurisdiction. Basically, the very same conditions under which out-of-state wineries are able to ship to Michigan residents.

The upside of this approach is obvious. Consumer demand is met, consumer rights are protected. the unconstitutional nature of the Michigan law is fixed and the state raises desperately needed tax revenue from a source quite willing to pay the taxes. But that won’t happen. Why?

According to the report in the Traverse City Record-Eagle, “Ken Wozniak, director of executive services for the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, said the state appealed because the ruling ‘undermines the LCC’s licensing system for retailers.

“We don’t know who these people are or what they had to go through to get licenses in other states,’ Wozniak said.”

I have a simple suggestion for Mr. Wosniak:…..ASK!

That’s right, Mr. Wozniak. Reach out to your peers at other state alcohol agencies and ask them what a businessperson must do to obtain a retail liquor license in those other states. One presumes that Michigan has a modicum of requirements that allows a person to obtain a liquor retailers license in that state. Wouldn’t it be both instructive and less expensive for the people of Michigan to have the Michigan Liquor Control Commission simply spend a day looking at the websites of other state liquor control commissions or making calls to ask questions or penning a letter requesting information about what a retail license holder must do to obtain that license in other states, rather than actually spending hundreds of thousands of Michigan tax payers dollars litigating an appeal they know they are likely to lose?

The fact of the matter is, the ruling that the Mr. Wozniak believes “undermines the LCC licensing system for retailers” does nothing of the sort. What it does do is undermine a system that is easily altered in a way that would no longer punish consumers, drain the state of tax revenue, reduce consumer choice and all for the sake of protecting a regulatory system that for all intents and purposes is primarily responsible for enriching a small group of alcohol distributors and wholesalers who might not make a dollar or two on a wine shipped to a consumer from an out-of-state retailer.

It’s unlikely that the Michigan Attorney General’s office will actually do the sensible thing and start asking around to see if out-of-state retailer wine shipments are feasible; to see if other state’s standards for licensing retailers meet Michigan’s criteria. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox was the man who, after the Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court decision in 2005, actually suggested, along with Nida Samona—the head of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, that instead of passing a law allowing out of state wineries to ship into Michigan that instead the rights of Michigan wineries to ship wine to Michigan residents be revoked. That’s right. Their approach was to do what they could to destroy a growing wine industry in Michigan and rip consumers of the most basic right. Happily, they failed in this attempt.

And now it appears it will take hundreds of thousands of dollars of Michigan Tax Payers funds, the time and effort of Michigan staff attorneys and likely many months all to find out that they have again failed in their attempt to continue to offend Michigan tax payers and protect Michigan’s elected officials’ main source of campaign contributions: The Michigan wine and beer wholesalers.

 To address this difference, ShipCompliant, the wine shipping compliance company, will be holding a VIRTUAL SEMINAR FOR WINE RETAILERS on October 23rd.

What this means is you will not have to book an airline flight, hotel and car rental in order to attend. In fact, you can attend from the comfort of your easy chair as long as you have your computer in front of you and a phone line.

In addition to SWRA participating and presenting on the issue of “The Regulatory Environment” for retail wine shippers,  Jason Eckenroth, Jeff Carroll and Jim Agger of ShipCompliant will walk participants through the various aspects of compliance with state rules and regulations for wine retailers.

SWRA HIGH RECOMMENDS that any retailer currently shipping wine or considering entering the wine shipping channel attend this important conference.

To participate CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP.

Specialty Wine Retailers has issued a press release on the matter that can be found HERE.

Wine.com announced it will now begin shipping into Michigan in THIS press release.

Corbin Houchins covered the ruling for ShipCompliant in THIS blog post.

David Eggert of the Associated Press covered the ruling HERE

MichWine, the Consumer Michigan website, covered the story HERE

Joel Goldberg blogged about the important decision in THIS post

Wine & Spirits Daily covered the wine for consumers in THIS story.

Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog had SOMETHING to say on the ruling.

Most folks are wondering if Michigan’s very active alcohol wholesalers will continue there anti-consumer march through the courts with an appeal or if the state of Michigan will take on consumers with the filing of an appeal. Frankly, the best thing Michigan could do for its consumers and its coffers would be to fashion rules that require out-of-state retailers to obtain a permit to ship into Michigan and require them to remit sales taxes, submit themselves to Michigan’s legal jurisdiction, require regular reporting and, in doing so, free up Michigan’s consumers to finally have access to the real American wine market.

Of course, this kind of ruling should sound familiar. It is essentially the same decision that the Supreme Court of the United States rendered in May 2005 when it ruled in Granholm v. Heald that the 21st Amendment does not give the state “the authority to pass non-uniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods.”

And this is exactly what the Michigan law did.

But Michigan is not alone. Among the other states that have similarly discriminatory and unconstitutional laws in place we find California, Washington, Texas, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, just to name a few.

This is the second time this year that a Federal District Court has leveled a stinging rebuke to states that ignore the desires and needs of consumers by instituting laws that discriminate against inter-state commerce. Both in his present case as well as the Texas lawsuit ruled on earlier this year, the courts leaned on the Granholm decision for authority.

It’s unlikely that either of these decisions will convince many of those in the wine community and regulatory community that the principles of Granholm do indeed apply to retailers just as they apply to wineries. Since the Granholm decision came down in 2005 a very cynical, self serving, anti-consumer attitude has infect those that claim that Granholm was only about wineries. This akin to saying that Brown v. Board of Education was only about the rights of little African-American girls to not be discriminated against in school attendance, but didn’t apply to little Hispanic girls. It’s faulty reasoning that can’t be defended.

It should also be noted that Professor Alex Tanford of the University of Indiana School of Law, the lawyer who brought this case to Michigan, should be commended for his outstanding work here on behalf of consumers, retailers and U.S. Constitution. His work led to a straightforward decision by Judge Hood.

What comes next is likely to be an appeal by the State of Michigan as well as the Michigan Wholesalers who intervened in this case. They are likely to ask for a stay of the ruling that requires the State of Michigan from enforcing laws against purchase and shipping of wine from out-of-state retailers to Michiganers. It’s unknown if the stay would be granted. Professor Tanford is sure to argue strenuously against such a blatantly anti-consumer move.

Specialty Wine Retailers Association applauds this latest decision. We continue to work to educate legislators, consumers, courts and the media about the rash of anti-consumer and anti-Free Trade laws that exist across the country and serve to benefit a small clique of very powerful economic interests who use their privileged place within the alcohol distribution system to protect themselves from competition and bar consumers from accessing the full measure of wines in the American marketplace.