|
Click
here to have the latest Direct Shipping news (and more!)
delivered right to your inbox, FREE.
November 19, 2008
Napa, CA – Since the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Granholm v. Heald, wine wholesalers have sought legislative barriers that sidestep the high court’s ruling in order to prevent legal, regulated wine direct shipping, according to Free the Grapes, a national coalition of thousands of wineries and 300,000 wine lovers. (www.freethegrapes.org) Today’s ruling in Family Winemakers v. Jenkins strikes a blow to the wholesalers’ campaign by declaring that Massachusetts’ restrictions on winery-to-consumer shipments are unconstitutional.
Subject to possible further appeals and clarification of the rules allowing common carriers to deliver wine into the state, the ruling paves the way for consumers to purchase and enjoy wines from any winery in the United States.
The Massachusetts’ law struck down by the Court is so complex as to effectively ban all direct-to-consumer wine shipments. Technically speaking, the statute does allow any winery producing less than 30,000 gallons to ship with a state-issued, direct shipping permit. And wineries producing more than 30,000 gallons, but without wholesaler representation in Massachusetts during the past six months, can also get a direct shippers permit. But wineries producing more than 30,000 gallons and who retain a Massachusetts wholesaler are prohibited from all direct shipping. These excluded wineries account for over 95% of all of the wine produced in the US each year. Today’s ruling enjoins the ABC from enforcing any of these provisions, as well as other provisions that worked to exclude direct shipments.
The wine wholesalers pursue two strategies. First, to punish successful wineries by prohibiting winery-to-consumer shipments based merely on a winery’s production capacity. As was the case in Massachusetts, “caps” simply replace one form of discrimination (i.e., based on winery location) that was ruled unconstitutional in Granholm v. Heald, with another (i.e., winery production capacity) that has now been ruled unconstitutional in Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins.
Second, wholesalers pursue laws that require consumers to visit wineries before any future winery-to-consumer orders are accepted and shipped. This archaic provision imposes a ridiculous burden on consumers, does not reflect the proven effectiveness of state alcohol regulators in establishing shipping regulations or the track record of winery compliance. No winery has had its licensed revoked for a violation of a state’s direct shipping laws.
Both strategies are flawed because they assume a ‘zero sum game’ for wine enjoyment. But winery anecdotal evidence clearly shows that a bottle of wine that is shipped directly does not replace a bottle purchased at a favorite restaurant or from a wine merchant. Legal winery-to-consumer shipments help to build awareness of wines and their sales through traditional sales channels. In fact, state legislators recognized this by starting to pass direct shipment laws in the 1980s.
| The results of the wholesaler’s national campaign have been uneven for the powerful middlemen: |
| • |
Florida. Wholesaler efforts to replace the current, open shipping system with a “cap” bill were defeated in 2006, 2007 and again in 2008. The proposed bills would have prevented shipments from wineries producing more than 250,000 gallons. |
| • |
Georgia: The best example of a state with previously unworkable regulations, Georgia replaced its overly complex law with the model direct shipping bill (effective 2008). |
| • |
Colorado: Colorado removed its on-site provision when wineries, wholesalers and the state worked together and implemented the model direct shipping bill (effective 2006). |
| • |
Massachusetts: With today’s ruling, discriminatory regulations based on winery production size were ruled unconstitutional.
|
| On the other hand: |
| • |
Arizona: State law bans winery shipments to Arizona consumers unless they have visited the winery in the previous calendar year (law effective 2003), and bans shipments from wineries producing more than 20,000 gallons (effective 2006). Litigation is pending. |
| • |
Kentucky: No common carriers have approved the state for shipping, pending the outcome of litigation. State law technically allows shipments from wineries producing less than 50,000 gallons. |
| • |
Ohio: State law bans winery shipments to Ohio consumers from wineries producing more than 250,000 gallons (effective 2008). |
In 2005 Massachusetts House Bill 4498 was introduced and passed both House and Senate. The bill was condemned for seeking to place conditions on out-of-state wineries that did not exist for Massachusetts’ wineries. No in-state wineries produced more than the 30,000 gallons, and they could sell directly to Massachusetts consumers as well as through state wholesalers. Out-of-state wineries over the 30,000 gallon cap would not have this option – they would have to either sell directly to consumers or through a Massachusetts wholesaler, if a wholesaler chose to represent them. Wineries that retained a Massachusetts wholesaler and produced more than 30,000 gallons were prohibited from direct-to-consumer shipping.
Governor Mitt Romney vetoed HB 4498 in November 2005 – commenting on its "anti-consumer effect, as well as its dubious constitutionality" – but the veto was overridden. In January 2006, Governor Romney introduced, but failed to pass, a separate bill similar to legislation working successfully in many other states, commenting that “It’s time we end the monopoly that wholesalers have over wine sales…”
HB 4498 became law in 2006. On September 18, 2006, Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins was filed, stating that current Massachusetts law violated the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause, which prohibits “laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Granholm v. Heald, May 2005)
Massachusetts is the seventh largest wine consumption state in the U.S. (source: Adams Wine Handbook, 2007, figures from 2006 data). Thirty-five states allow legal, regulated winery-to-consumer wine shipments. For more information, visit www.freethegrapes.org and www.familywinemakers.org.
# # #
October 1, 2008
Save the Date:
Second Annual Direct to Consumer Symposium
Scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Wine Industry’s Premier Direct Marketing and Sales Summit Returns to Napa
Napa, CA – The Direct to Consumer Symposium, the wine industry’s comprehensive summit on direct marketing and sales, is scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at The Meritage Resort & Spa in Napa Valley. The event is presented by Coalition for Free Trade and Free The Grapes!, two organizations that have helped to increase the market for legal direct-to-consumer wine shipments.
The inaugural event last May attracted a standing room only crowd of more than 250 attendees, a sold-out trade show, as well as guests and speakers from across the United States.
This second annual Direct to Consumer Symposium is expected to draw an even larger group of vintners, winery associations and suppliers. The steering committee’s goals are to help wineries build their direct to consumer business, and raise funds for the two presenting organizations.
To receive an email invitation, please sign up to the winery email list at: http://www.freethegrapes.org/signup.html.
Sessions, speakers and registration information will be emailed to list subscribers. Sponsorship packages and forms are available now for download from the event’s website at www.coalitionforfreetrade.org/symposium.
For other information, email fedup@freethegrapes.org, or contact Toni Lizotte at (707) 254-1115.
# # #
July 10, 2008
Stage Set for Challenge to Massachusetts Wine Direct Shipping Ban
Coalition for Free Trade Scheduled for July 29 Oral Argument in Case Brought by the Family Winemakers of California
A ban that prevents Massachusetts wine lovers from purchasing their favorite wines will get its day in court July 29, as attorneys for the Coalition for Free Trade represent the 700+ winery-member trade association and plaintiff Family Winemakers of California.
The oral argument is set for July 29, 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 12, 5th floor, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston. The hearing is open to the public although seating is limited. The plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment is available at www.coalitionforfreetrade.org.
Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins challenges the state’s ban on shipments from wineries and wine companies producing an aggregate of more than 30,000 gallons (about 12,600, 12-bottle cases, considered a small winery). The law does not affect any in-state wineries – which all produce less than the 30,000 gallons – but affects thousands of America’s 6,000 wineries, representing 98% of wine in interstate commerce, according to the filing.
“The law creates a discriminatory, two-tier scheme that forces wineries producing more than 30,000 gallons to decide whether they sell through an in-state wholesaler or directly to in-state consumers, but imposes no such limitation on in-state wineries,” said Tracy Genesen, legal counsel to Coalition for Free Trade and partner of Kirkland & Ellis, representing the plaintiffs.
“While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that states cannot discriminate against a winery based on its location, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts will decide if states can discriminate based on a winery’s production size,” Genesen added. The motion was written by Ms. Genesen as well as Kirkland & Ellis attorneys Kenneth W. Starr, Elizabeth Locke and Micah Osgood. Gerald Caruso of Rubin & Rudman, Family Winemakers of California’s local counsel, also assisted.
“Our winery members want the court to invalidate key sections of Massachusetts law and level up so that all wineries, regardless of size, can compete in the Massachusetts market on their terms,” said Paul Kronenberg, President of the Sacramento-based Family Winemakers of California. Of the association’s 700+ winery members, more than 90% produce less than 10,000 cases per year. “The wine distributor cartel is promoting the cap provision to shut down legal, regulated direct-to-consumer shipments,” he added.
Attorneys say the case has broad implications. The contested “cap” provision is similar to laws in Ohio, Arizona and Kentucky, and has been considered, but failed, for three consecutive years in Florida’s legislature.
Background on Massachusetts Law
Massachusetts House Bill 4498 became law in 2006, prohibiting an out-of-state winery from shipping directly to a Massachusetts adult consumer if the winery has been represented by a Massachusetts wholesaler within the last six months, or if the winery produces more than 30,000 gallons of wine a year. No such limitations exist for Massachusetts’ 25 wineries because none produce more than the 30,000 gallon cap – they can sell directly to Massachusetts consumers as well as through in-state wholesalers. Out-of-state wineries over the cap don’t have this option.
Then Governor Mitt Romney vetoed HB 4498 in November 2005 – commenting on its "anti-consumer effect, as well as its dubious constitutionality" – but the veto was overridden. The following January, Governor Romney introduced a separate bill similar to legislation working successfully in many other states, commenting that “It’s time we end the monopoly that wholesalers have over wine sales…”
Additionally, the 2006 law effectively bans shipments from out-of-state wineries. HB 4498 limits how much wine an individual consumer can receive from an aggregate of wineries every year, but does not provide a mechanism for wineries to know how much an individual has received from other wineries. Most states have a case limit per winery per individual per year, rather than per individual. Because wineries can loose their federal license to make wine for non-compliance, the statute bars interstate shipments. Perhaps more importantly, FedEx and UPS do not ship into Massachusetts.
A total of 35 states allow winery-to-consumer shipments in some form – up from 17 states a decade ago – and those legal states now represent about 80% of wine consumption in the U.S. Massachusetts is the eighth largest wine consumption state; only New Jersey has a larger consumption base and continues to ban interstate winery-to-consumer shipments. (Source: Adams Wine Handbook 2007).
About Coalition for Free Trade
Founded in 1997, the Coalition for Free Trade is a 501(c)3 non-profit legal foundation whose only goal is to legalize direct-to-consumer shipments of wine from out-of-state wineries and retailers in those states where it is currently prohibited. Its legal team was instrumental in bringing the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. But the 2005 ruling requires additional litigation to remove discriminatory trade barriers that continue to prohibit of-age consumers from receiving wine for personal enjoyment directly from out-of-state wineries and retailers.
About Family Winemakers of California
Family Winemakers of California advocates the rights and interests of its members to freely produce, market and sell their products, and is dedicated to preserving the broad diversity of the California wine industry.
# # #
May 20, 2008
OP ED Submitted to South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Cheers to Florida Representative Bogndanoff
Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in May of 2005, a Florida Federal District Court ruled that portions of Florida’s alcohol distribution laws were unconstitutional. As a result, since March of 2006, and for the first time in recent history, our adult consumers have enjoyed the right to purchase and ship their wines of choice to their homes and businesses directly from over 5,000 of America’s wineries. It is estimated that less than 17 % of wineries have national distribution, (according to a 2003 survey of Wine Institute’s California winery members), which grossly limited consumer choice in Florida prior to the 2005 Supreme Court decision.
Although there have been no negative implications from this new found freedom, Florida’s powerful liquor distribution industry tried for a third year in a row to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision to support the free market and attempted to eliminate Florida wine lovers’ ability to purchase the wines of their choice by seeking legislation to ban direct shipments to consumers from any winery, or wine company, producing more than 250,000 gallons. If successful, the distributors would have eliminated consumer access to over 90 % of all wines produced in the United States. Simply put, the distributors were advocating for a statutory monopoly to protect their business interests.
The 2008 legislative session has come and gone, and despite these attempts, Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff stood with the citizens of this state in favor of consumer choice and against a proposal that places the decision about which wines an individual can enjoy in the hands of the distributors.
The national trend is to allow legal, regulated direct shipments without the penalty that a cap imposes on a successful winery. The majority of states now embrace reasonable, proven legislation that benefits consumers, creates a new tax revenue source, satisfies regulatory concerns, and supports in-state wine industries. This past legislative session, while Florida was fending off greater restrictions on wine shipments, Georgia passed a law without any limitations. The majority of other states already allow for legal, regulated winery-to-consumer shipments without artificial caps and restrictions.
Cheers to Representative Bogdanoff for standing with Florida consumers and not the special interests. There has been no outcry from the citizens of Florida to restrict their wine choice. In fact, Floridians just want to continue buying their favorite wines from any winery they choose. It’s really just as simple as that.
Jeremy Benson
Executive Director
# # #
April 29, 2008
Free the Grapes! and Coalition for Free Trade Toast ShipCompliant Promotion:
“Help Shackles” Campaign Supports Winery Free Trade, Consumer Choice in Wine
Napa, CA – ShipCompliant, the wine shipping compliance company, has created a novel promotion designed to help wineries and raise money for Coalition for Free Trade and Free the Grapes!, two organizations at the forefront of industry litigation and consumer outreach on the direct shipping issue. ShipCompliant will donate one month’s revenue for each new customer who signs up for their direct shipping compliance software in May 2008. www.shipcompliant.com/helpshackles
Legislation that favors consumer choice in wine plus the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Granholm v. Heald have been a boon to wine lovers. And while Free the Grapes! and Coalition for Free Trade have continued to work with industry representatives to open new states, defend legal states,
and streamline onerous legislation, a patchwork of state regulations presents administrative challenges to wineries.
ShipCompliant is used by more than 600 wine brands across the county, helping companies understand and efficiently comply with changing regulations. This is done using order shipping compliance checks as well as auto-populated
state shipping and tax reports – the technology is underpinned by a flexible, geography based rules-engine and dedicated compliance expertise.
Now, ShipCompliant has launched its “Help Shackles” campaign – named after the Free the Grapes! logo – to raise additional funds for the associations that have broadened the market for direct to consumer wine sales. “This is the right thing to do, and wineries will find it surprisingly easy to use our new compliance tools,” said Jason Eckenroth, president of ShipCompliant. “We hope to translate ShipCompliant’s value into a generous donation for these worthy and effective organizations,” he added.
“This is a breakthrough concept for the wine industry,” said W. Reed Foster, president of Coalition for Free Trade. “For too long, funding has relied on a few generous people and companies who recognize the return on investment of these donations,” he added. About ShipCompliant
ShipCompliant is produced by Six88 Solutions, based in Boulder, Colorado. ShipCompliant offers a web based subscription service that provides wine direct shipping compliance checks and reporting for more than 700 wine brands throughout the United States.
For more information on the ShipCompliant promotion and service, wineries should visit www.shipcompliant.com/helpshackles, or call Kim Moss at (707) 320-0053.
# # #
March 24, 2008
Free the Grapes! Toasts Wisconsin Legislature
for
Supporting Consumer Choice in Wine
Napa, CA – Wisconsin wine lovers will enjoy an increase in the wines available to them after a new winery-to-consumer shipping law is implemented October 1, 2008.
On March 13, Governor James Doyle signed Senate Bill 485, which replaces the state’s current reciprocal law on October 1, 2008. The new law will allow wineries to purchase a permit for $100 and ship up to 12 cases of wine per individual per year, among other provisions.
Prior to passing the new law, Wisconsin was one of only three remaining “reciprocal shipping states”, a type of “free trade network” that had allowed only wineries in participating states to make shipments. As states like Washington, Oregon and other key markets changed over to permits, Wisconsin consumers have found it harder to locate wines under the old law. All U.S. wineries will be eligible for the new Wisconsin permit.
The model bill has been implemented in a majority of states, in many cases replacing reciprocal laws as in Wisconsin, allowing any U.S. winery to purchase a permit, pay taxes, mark boxes, and consent to the jurisdiction of the state, among other provisions. The model bill is supported by the Federal Trade Commission and was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Wisconsin wine lovers will no longer be limited to purchasing wines directly wineries located in just a handful of states. The outdated law effectively shut-off consumers from purchasing wines directly from thousands of wineries in states like Washington, Oregon, Texas and New York, among many others” said Jeremy Benson, executive director, Free the Grapes!, a national consumer and winery grassroots coalition. There are now more than 5,000 wineries in the United States, at least one in each state
“Wisconsin’s legislators have embraced reasonable, proven legislation that benefits consumers, creates a new tax revenue source, satisfies regulatory concerns, and supports the in-state wine industry,” he added.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on direct shipping in May 2005, winery-to-consumer shipping has become legal in 35 states, which collectively represent 81% of wine consumption in the U.S. Free the Grapes! is a national consumer-winery grassroots coalition of more than 300,000 members and supports legal, regulated direct-to-consumer wine shipments.
# # #
March 6, 2008
Florida Legislators Defy Two Years of Successful Wine Shipping,
Introduce Bills to Ban Winery Direct Shipments
Free the Grapes: Don’t Cap My Wine!
Napa, CA – Florida legislators have introduced bills that promise to ban winery-to-consumer shipments, eliminating a consumer privilege that has been enjoyed by Floridians since March 2006, according to Free the Grapes!, the national consumer and winery grassroots coalition (www.freethegrapes.org).
The bills include House Bill 1293 (Garcia), House Bill 693 (Bogdanoff), Senate Bill 1096 (Margolils), and Senate Bill 1736 (Geller).
Florida wine consumers and U.S. wineries are opposing the bills because they all include “caps” which would ban winery-to-consumer shipments from any medium-sized or large winery producing more than 250,000 gallons. For the past two years, wine wholesaler middlemen in Florida have strongly supported similar legislation, and without success. Massachusetts passed a law imposing a similar, arbitrary cap but it is being challenged in court because it discriminates against wineries based purely on how much wine they craft. A summary judgment is expected this spring.
Free the Grapes! is encouraging consumers to visit www.freethegrapes.org and personalize a message to state legislators supporting no change to the existing law, or the introduction of the model direct shipping permit bill. The model bill has been implemented in a majority of states, allowing wineries to purchase a permit, pay taxes, mark boxes, and consent to the jurisdiction of the state, among other provisions. The model bill is supported by the Federal Trade Commission and was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Each of these protectionist, special interest bills hurts consumer choice in wine. Why change the current law? Consumers are happy, wineries are paying taxes, and the sky is not falling,” added Benson.
There are now more than 5,000 wineries in the United States, at least one in each state. But it is estimated that less than 17% of wineries have national distribution, based on a 2003 survey by Wine Institute. And because it is logistically impossible for wholesalers and retailers to stock and sell more than 15,000 new wines introduced each vintage, Florida’s legislators and special interests are deciding which wines Floridians can and cannot purchase.
“These bills aim to cut off Florida’s wine lovers from their favorite wineries,” Benson concluded.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on direct shipping in May 2005, winery-to-consumer shipping has become legal in 35 states, including Florida. The legal states collectively represent 81% of wine consumption in the U.S., and Florida is the second largest state for wine enjoyment (source: Adams Wine Handbook 2007). If one of these bills passes into law, Florida would be the largest state ever to rescind its winery-to-consumer shipping privilege.
As background, an August 2005 U.S. District Court order ruled Florida’s direct shipping ban unconstitutional. It was followed by a determination by the Department of Business & Professional Regulation that allowed Florida consumers to begin ordering wine directly from out-of-state wineries in March 2006. At the time, Florida was the largest U.S. state that did not allow legal, regulated winery-to-consumer shipping. Within a year, the number of wineries filing shipping reports and paying the required excise taxes rose from 0 to more than 500, according to DBPR records. From July 2006 through January 2007, out-of-state wineries shipped approximately 30,000 cases and paid more than $157,000 in excise taxes.
# # #
February 14, 2008
New Mexico Wine Shipping Bill Stalls in House
Napa, CA – On the last day of New Mexico’s 4-week legislative session, Senate Bill 59 died in the House following Senate approval Saturday.
The bill received widespread support from Senators, was endorsed by the New Mexico Wine Growers Association, and received favorable testimony by the New Mexico Retailers Association and the New Mexico Restaurant Association.
The bill promised to replace the state’s outmoded ‘reciprocal’ direct shipping law – which limits consumers from purchasing their favorite wines – with language that would have allowed wineries and retailers from any state to obtain a permit for a fee, pay taxes, and ship limited amounts of wine to New Mexico consumers 21 years or older.
# # #
January 18, 2008
Free the Grapes!: Following State Direct Shipping Laws Still Key to Improving Consumer Choice
Napa, CA – The first provision in the Wine Industry Direct Shipping Code is for licensees to abide by state shipping laws, and the provision continues to be key to expanding choices available to wine consumers, according to Free the Grapes!, the consumer grassroots coalition that implemented the set of voluntary guidelines in 1999.
“With recent news of sting operations, it’s important to keep in mind the longer term strategies that have helped to expand consumer choice,” said Jeremy Benson, executive director of Free the Grapes! “Following the code’s guidelines is not only the right thing to do, but also a proven, practical approach to helping wine lovers.”
“The code and related model direct shipping bill have played a key role in demonstrating that limited, regulated direct shipping works,” said Steve Gross, Free the Grapes! board member and director of state relations, Wine Institute. “The number of states which allow licensed wineries to ship wine interstate to consumers has risen from 17 to 33 in the last decade, and those states represent nearly 80% of wine consumption in the U.S.”
The purpose of the voluntary code is to provide shippers with a framework which, when adopted, will ensure that direct shipment orders and deliveries are completed in a manner consistent with appropriate laws, satisfies consumer demand, and supports the tenets of Free the Grapes! Introduced on January 12, 1999, several of the code’s principles were taken from the model direct shipment law, which was proposed by the Coalition for Free Trade, Family Winemakers of California, Wine Institute and American Vintners Association (now WineAmerica), and recommended for adoption by the National Conference of State Legislatures, Task Force on the Wine Industry, on November 5, 1997. The code can be viewed online at www.freethegrapes.org.
# # #
Back to the Top
October 2008
LITIGATION UPDATE
Michigan: Retailer-to-Consumer Shipment Ban Overturned, Decision Stayed
On September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Page Hood ruled that Michigan’s ban on retailer-to-consumer shipments was unconstitutional. The decision in Siesta Village Market LLC v. Granholm is stayed, giving the state time to appeal, so the current prohibition remains in effect. The judge essentially declared that the 2005 ruling, Granholm v. Heald applies to retailer shipments as well as winery shipments.
Indiana: Face-to-Face Requirement Upheld, Decision Stayed
An Indiana judge upheld a state law that allows wineries to sell wine directly to consumers as long as they have made an initial visit to the winery premises. The ruling was remanded to a lower court, which originally overturned the ruling, in order to issue an order in line with the newest ruling. Attorneys are awaiting regulatory and compliance specifics from state regulators.
Massachusetts – Waiting on Ruling
Attorneys on all sides await this fall’s ruling on Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, which challenges the state’s ban on shipments from wineries producing an aggregate of more than 30,000 gallons.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
In the world of news coverage, the removal of an overly burdensome state regulation does not make a sexy headline. Editorial coverage of the direct shipping issue tends to focus on definitive events like the signing of a new permit bill or the issuance of a court ruling. That’s news.
But efforts to streamline overly complex and burdensome state regulations have been underway, albeit quietly, for several years. They may not make the headlines, but they are enormously important.
Wine industry representatives from Wine Institute, Family Winemakers of California and WineAmerica have aggressively pursued a reduction of the regulations that seem to fly in the face of logic as well as the concept of a single economic union envisioned by the founding fathers. The results are good for wineries faced with a dizzying array of reports and requirements, and consumers who are finally enjoying increased choice in the wine marketplace.
Here are a few of the many victories worth highlighting: |
| • |
Georgia: The poster child of unworkable state shipping laws. GA, as wineries well know, imposed different regulations depending on whether a winery had a distribution agreement. This law was mercifully replaced through a partnership effort between Wine Institute and local wineries resulting in a new law that removed the distribution exclusion, included a modest $50 annual winery fee, and went into effect July 1.
|
| • |
Virginia: The 2003 permit bill required winery owners to submit a full criminal background check as part of the application process. That requirement was removed in 2004.
|
| • |
New Hampshire: The 1998 permit bill included a $228 annual winery fee, and based on the success of the program, was eliminated in 2001.
|
What follows are updates from last month: |
| • |
Washington, D.C.: Rule Change Increases Shipping Limit. It’s not often we have an update on shipping rules in DC, but the District increased its volume limit from “one quart” to one case per person per winery per month. There continues to be no permit, reporting or tax requirements for direct shippers. However, wineries must comply with their common carrier’s wine shipping policy.
|
| • |
New Mexico: Free the Grapes! Needs More Consumer Supporters. New Mexico, one of the remaining reciprocal states, may consider a new bill during the short 2009 legislative session. Please ask your friends and colleagues in New Mexico to sign-up to the Free the Grapes! email list so we can keep them informed.
|
| • |
Wisconsin Increases Case Limits. Effective October 2, 2008, Wisconsin replaced its reciprocal law with a winery permit system. The new law increases the shipment limit from three cases per person per year to 12 cases per person per year (consumers are responsible for complying with the annual volume limit).
|
NEW FACEBOOK PAGE
Become a fan of Free the Grapes! at |
 |
# # #
Back to the Top
| 
