This week’s wine news: Beard award semifinalists feature drink local, while three-tier wins a court victory and wine clubs lose
• Beard award semifinalists: Seven wineries, including four regional producers, are among the semifinalists for the 2020 James Beard Award for outstanding beer, wine, or spirits producer. The three are some of the top Drink Local winemakers in the country: Texas’ Kim McPherson of McPherson Cellars; Vermont’s Deirdre Heekin of La Garagista Farm + Winery; New York’s Nancy Irelan and Mike Schnelle of Red Tail Ridge Winery; and Virginia’s Rutger de Vink, of RdV Vineyards. The Beard Awards are the restaurant business’ version of the Oscars, so this is a big deal. In addition, given the way the final voting often turns out, earning semifinalist honors is the equivalent of winning for someone not on the East Coast or in a major media market. The finalists will be announced March 25.
• Score another for three-tier: A Mississippi court has ruled that out-of-state retailers can’t sell wine in that state, in a decision that left a couple of legal scholars scratching their heads. The decision itself isn’t surprising, given the way the three-tier system works to prevent an out of state retailer from doing that. What is odd, wrote the Alcohol Law Review, is that “this unanimous decision reverses the trial court’s decision. … This case served as a reminder of first year law school’s Civil Procedure class and examination of when personal jurisdiction kicks in. The opinion does not really address alcohol laws in depth.” But, as the blog’s liquor law expert has said many times, since when does three-tier have anything to do with alcohol law?
• Score one for wine drinkers: The blog has written extensively about problems associated with third-party wine clubs – those not run by wineries. Now, a lawsuit has agreed with us. Two national wine clubs have settled lawsuits alleging they broke California law by not notifying customers that their memberships would be renewed automatically. Direct Wines and Wine Awesomeness did not admit wrongdoing, but agreed to change their policy and pay $350,000 and $15,000, respectively, in penalties and costs. From now on, each will have tell a customer when their membership is being renewed, and can’t hide the policy in fine print or on an Internet link.
This week’s wine news: We start 2017 with items from the almost Python-esque world of wine legal affairs
• What’s in a name? Regular visitors here know how much the Wine Curmudgeon appreciates lawsuits about wine names, and there is another one – the small producer that makes a label called Six Degrees is suing the big producer that makes a label called 6°. To make the case more interesting, the small producer is family owned and the big producer is owned by members of the family that owns Bronco Wine, one of the biggest wine companies in the world. And there’s a great lawyer’s quote, too, hinting at blackmail. With a spectator sport like this, who needs football?
• Only in Michigan: Utah is generally considered to have the most restrictive liquor laws in the country, but Michigan – home to the Granholm direct shipping case – is also a contender. That’s why this news, that the state is relaxing its notorious direct shipping requirements, is notable. The post is difficult to follow unless you practice wine law, but this analogy works: Previously, shipping wine into Michigan was the equivalent of wearing three pairs of socks when most of us only wear one pair. Now, it’s the equivalent of wearing two pairs of socks. Still unnecessary, but not as awkward.
• Yes, but what about Utah? Not to be outdone by Michigan, a Utah legislator has proposed lowering the state’s legal alcohol limit to .05%, the lowest in the country – about the same as couple of of glasses of wine with dinner and which would make drunk drivers out of every social drinker in the state. The idea is not new, and it’s just as noxious now as it was then. As this well-reported story from the Las Angeles Times notes, drunk driving deaths in the U.S. have fallen by one-third over the past three decades. As Mothers Against Drunk Driving pointed out a couple of years ago, social drinkers aren’t the problem. It’s the repeat offender who drives drunk, even after arrests and license suspensions.
? Blame it on Utah: The Wine Curmudgeon has first-hand experience with Utah’s liquor laws, thanks to a story I wrote about the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. But not even I was ready for this excellent piece of reporting by Nancy Lofholm in The Denver Post. How about eight different liquor licenses? Or that some establishments have to have a barrier between customers and the bartender, and that others don’t — even if they have the same license? But don’t worry too much. Says one Utah tourism official: “We are not the only state with peculiar liquor laws.”
? Scores don’t matter: Or, did a New York judge tell a wine drinker that a high score can’t be the basis for suing about wine quality? There are many ways to interpret the decision, in which a Manhattan judge dismissed a lawsuit (requires free registration) in which a consumer wanted a refund from a wine store because he didn’t like the six bottles of 91-point wine he bought. The judge wrote that wine taste is subjective, and so can’t be the basis for a lawsuit. I know the wine in question, a decent enough bottle of Rioja, but one that’s probably not worth the $12.99 the consumer paid. Damn those scores anyway.
? Questioning three-tier? Or so says this post from the Libation Law blog, analyzing a New Jersey court decision that said “New Jersey’s liquor control laws and regulations must be administered in the light of changing conditions.” Which, of course, is what those of us who want to reform the three-tier system have been saying for years: That a system put in place at the end of Prohibition to keep the mob out of liquor has outlived its reason for being. The decision, which dealt with distributors and how they paid commission, is esoteric, but Ashley Brandt at Libation is optimistic that it “strengthens the argument that a vigilant regulatory system can uncover and prohibit the practices that people claim the three-tiered system was meant to forestall.” The Wine Curmudgeon, with his vast legal experience (a semester of First Amendment law in college) isn’t quite so sure, but who am I to ruin a good mood?
Most wine blogs can’t participate in Google’s AdSense network, perhaps the leading on-line ad service. That’s because, as I found out when I applied, we violate its terms of service: “We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. Issues: Drugs, drug paraphernalia, alcohol, beer or tobacco. … Please remove all drug-related content from your site, then resubmit your application.”
That we’re doing nothing illegal and that we don’t have any drug-related content to remove seems like just another of those wonderful, Google-esque ways the search giant does business: Buying companies to close them, discontinuing popular services, or agreeing with the Chinese government that Internet censorship isn’t such a bad thing.
But Google’s decision to ban wine blogs from AdSense goes deeper than that, speaking to the contradictions inherent in wine and alcohol 80 years after Prohibition, thanks to the NeoDrys, fear of underage drinking, and the three-tier system. Google doesn’t object to wine, as near as I can tell. It just doesn’t want to be responsible for someone buying it who might break the law, because that could lead to nasty publicity, lawsuits, and the besmirching of its good name. More, after the jump:
Which made interesting reading, even for those of us who haven ?t had a law class since the late 1970s. Federal judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that the that Kentucky law that prohibited grocery stores from selling liquor but that allowed drug stores to do so was unconstitutional. Heyburn wrote that it seemed kind of silly that ?a grocery-selling drugstore like Walgreens may sell wine and liquor, but a pharmaceutical-selling grocery store like Kroger cannot. ?
That ?s the good news for those who want to see wine sold in grocery stores in the 19 or so states where it ?s illegal. The bad news, as my pal and attorney Lou Bright (one of the top liquor lawyers in the country) told me, is that the decision will have almost no effect anywhere but in Kentucky, given how unique the state ?s law is.
In addition, Lou said, the distinction between which stores could sell liquor and which couldn ?t ?was drawn on a factor that didn ?t have anything to do with the sale of alcoholic beverages or any policy interest related to them. ? So the judge ?s decision was reasonably straightforward.
How often does that happen in liquor law?