Advertising and Marketing

In the past three years, TTB has approved an increasing number of certificate of label approvals (“COLA”) for hemp-flavored vodka, from Mill Six’s hemp, white tea and ginger flavored vodka to Olde Imperial Mystic’s hemp infused vodka. Distillers have designed labels with green smoke-like images and psychedelic sixties-style lettering to hint at their cultural connection to marijuana. As more states have legalized recreational cannabis, distillers have been thinking more ambitiously about combining their distilling business with one or more aspects of the emerging marijuana business.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Winter 2017.

It’s hard to deny that marijuana has a cultural connection with craft beer, or at least with substantial segments of the craft brewing community. Many craft brewers have signaled to their fans that they know a thing or two about the rituals and lingo of marijuana consumption. But with the legalization of recreational cannabis by several states since 2012, many brewers have been thinking more ambitiously about combining their brewing business with one or more aspects of the emerging marijuana business.

Read “Government Affairs Extra | Craft Beer and Marijuana.”

This article originally appeared in The New Brewer November/December 2017.

On November 7, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the latest in a series of industry draft guidance documents to help implement menu labeling and nutrient disclosure regulations applicable to chain restaurants (Draft Guidance). FDA guidance documents are advisory in nature and represent the views of the FDA at a given point in time. Accordingly, guidance is subject to change, but is useful for developing a compliance plan for retail establishments covered by the menu labeling regulations. Changes are usually incremental and based on agency experience and input from regulated industry members.

The FDA established a 60-day period for comments on the draft menu labeling and nutrient disclosure guidance. The comment period ends on January 6, 2018.

The current compliance date for menu labeling and nutrient disclosure regulations is May 7, 2018.

Implementation of federal menu labeling and nutrient disclosures by chain restaurants is a study in modern American political and administrative processes. For those who already tried to comply with the formal FDA regulations and prior guidance, an explanatory note about delays in the administrative process appears at the end of this post.

Two sections of the Draft Guidance explicitly address alcohol beverages.

  • Guidance is offered for beer lists on menus and the discussion has broader application to wine and spirits products and cocktails that are standard menu items on chain restaurant menus.
  • Sources of nutrient information for beer, wine and spirits are also discussed to provide an alternative to expensive laboratory testing for each brand that a manufacturer offers.

The Draft Guidance also:

  • Includes several plain-language explanations of key terms in FDA regulations with useful distinctions between regular menu items and season or special items;
  • Displays a number of graphics designed to assist retailers with standardized formats to communicate calorie content of various foods to consumers and to distinguish menus from marketing materials;
  • Directs manufacturers and retailers to reliable sources and methods to prepare and display compliant nutrient disclosures; and
  • Provides information on presentation of mandatory standard menu notices alerting consumers to the federal government’s recommended 2,000 calorie diet and availability of nutritional information for standard menu items upon request to a server or manager at a retail establishment.

The FDA guidance and the formal regulations use subjective terms about legibility (e.g., contrasting, clear and conspicuous). Those terms aim to ensure that information is consumer-friendly, but they could lead to nuisance complaints from regulators. FDA regional personnel and local inspectors under contract with the FDA will monitor compliance with menu labeling regulations. Since chains will, by nature, have locations in multiple jurisdictions, consistency in enforcement poses a challenge to industry and government.

To mitigate regulatory risks, a conservative approach is advisable to mandatory disclosures. All aspects of calorie and nutrient disclosure should be reviewed by counsel or a knowledgeable compliance professional. The review should start with the manner used to ascertain calories and nutrients and continue through preparation and publication of new and easy-to-read menus and nutrient disclosures. While the regulations will inevitably lead to a standardized portion of chain menus, the Draft Guidance does not inhibit traditional point-of-sale marketing materials, graphics and other creative elements in a menu or associated marketing materials.

Why has menu labeling taken so long?

  • Menu labeling and nutritional disclosure requirements for chain restaurants are mandated by Congress in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (better known as Obamacare).
  • A four-year rulemaking process on menu labeling ended with publication of a final rule on December 1, 2014. That rule is unchanged as of November 2017, and is found at 21 CFR 101.11.
  • A protracted debate occurred over the complexity of the rule and practical issues for food retailers who are responsible for compliance.
  • In 2015, Congress enacted an appropriations bill, which included a “policy rider” ordering the FDA to not to spend money on implementation and enforcement of the final rule until one-year after publication of a guidance document. Because appropriations bills deal with funding and not substantive policy, Congress provided no additional guidance to the FDA to clarify issues raised in the rulemaking and public controversies surrounding menu labeling.
  • The FDA published a “final guidance document” on May 5, 2016, with a new compliance date of May 5, 2017. Controversy continued, and the FDA extended the implementation date again to May 7, 2018.
  • The November 2017 draft FDA guidance document discussed above could be revised again following the 60-day comment period.
  • The compliance date remains May 7, 2018 unless extended again by the FDA or delayed by additional Congressional action.

Last month the US District Court for the Central District of California issued an order in the Shalikar v. Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc. false advertising class action case. Like many similar cases, Shalikar alleges that the plaintiffs, as representatives of a purported class of consumers, were deceived into paying more for Asahi beer because they believed the beer was made in Japan when, in fact, the beer sold in the United States was produced in Canada. In the recent order, the court denied Asahi’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (a 12(b)(6) motion).

The Shalikar plaintiffs brought their case under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, and also pled common-law claims for breach of implied warranty, fraud, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Asahi beer that is sold in the United States is brewed in Canada, and each label states “Brewed and Bottled under Asahi’s Supervision by Molson Canada, Toronto, Canada.” Each label also states “Product of Canada” as required by US customs regulations. Plaintiffs alleged, however, they were deceived into paying more for the product because the labels and packaging use the word “Asahi,” which means “morning sun” in Japanese, and the label and packaging employs Japanese characters in several places. Plaintiffs also produced a survey purporting to show that the beer’s packaging led 86 percent of the respondents to believe that the product was brewed in Japan. Continue Reading Ruling in the Asahi Beer Class Action

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Matal v. Tam, declaring the Trademark Act’s (commonly referred to as the “Lanham Act”) “disparagement clause” unconstitutional as a violation of the free speech principles embodied in the First Amendment. If the case name doesn’t ring a bell, the players involved might. The decision was the culmination of Simon Shiao Tams’ fight to obtain a federal trademark registration for “THE SLANTS” for use in connection with his rock band. The term “Slants” can be used as a racially pejorative word for persons of Asian descent and was selected by the Asian-American band in an effort to “reclaim” the derogatory term. Tam’s win at the Supreme Court, however, wasn’t only a victory for his band. The Washington Redskins, who are also engaged in a protracted legal battle to maintain their trademark registrations despite challenge from a Native American group, hailed the decision a success. The Redskins’ owner, Dan Snyder, simply stated: “I am THRILLED.”

Continue Reading.

Recently, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued an update to its existing public guidance on personalized labels. The current update clarifies the process for obtaining an approved COLA for personalized labels without requiring the applicant to resubmit the COLA application for certain changes made to the labels.

On October 11, 2017, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) reopened the comment period for the following three notices of proposed rulemaking:

  1. Notice No. 160, Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Record Keeping Requirements

TTB proposes to amend the labeling and record keeping requirements of 27 C.F.R. part 24. The proposed rule provides that standard grape wine containing 7 percent or more alcohol by volume (ABV) covered by a certificate of exemption from label approval may not be labeled with a varietal (type of grape) designation, a type designation containing a varietal significance, a vintage date or an appellation of origin unless the wine is labeled in compliance with the appropriate standards in 27 C.F.R. part 4 for that label information. TTB also seeks comments on alternate proposals submitted during previous comment periods for Notice No. 160. Continue Reading TTB Reopens Comment Period for Three Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

On Friday, October 13, 2017, a Texas Court of Appeals handed down the long-awaited decision in Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Mark Anthony Brewing, Inc., No. 03-16-00039-CV.

The case involves Texas’ ban on private-label malt beverage/beer labels, which appear in regulations that are one aspect of the state’s comprehensive tied-house laws. Mark Anthony Brewing sought a declaratory ruling on those Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) regulations after the TABC refused to approve the labels for Mark Anthony’s T.G.I. Friday’s branded flavored malt beverages. T.G.I. Friday’s is also, of course, a well-known retail chain. Mark Anthony produces the T.G.I. Friday’s line under a trademark license from the retailer, as governed by a trademark licensing agreement between the parties.

A Texas trial court ruled in favor of Mark Anthony, holding that the TABC regulations in question violate the First Amendment. The trial court further ruled that Mark Anthony’s sales of the product and the licensing agreement between Mark Anthony and T.G.I. Friday’s either did not violate Texas’ tied-house prohibitions or, in the alternative, those prohibitions were unconstitutional as applied to Mark Anthony’s sales and the parties’ agreement. Continue Reading Texas Court of Appeals Reverses T.G.I. Friday’s Label Decision

Today’s off-premises retail landscape is dominated by large chains that rely on practices generally known as category management to maximize the profitability of their stores. Some of the activities falling under the category management umbrella require close interaction between the retailer and the producers, importers, or distributors supplying them product. As a result of this interaction, the federal Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) last year issued a ruling indicating that industry members’ participation in category management activities could result in a violation of the tied-house provision of the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act and the TTB’s corresponding tied-house regulations.

Continue Reading

Originally published in The New Brewer, September/October 2017.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California’s recent opinion in Broomfield v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., No. 17-cv-01027-BLF (Sept. 1, 2017) represents the latest decision in the now long-line of false advertising cases alleging that beer brands misrepresent their geographic origins.

The Broomfield case involves the marketing of Kona beers, allegedly in a manner that deceptively suggests that the beers are brewed in Hawaii. In fact, all packaged Kona beer and all draft Kona beer sold outside of Hawaii is brewed in Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire and Tennessee. The Kona brands bear names (e.g., Big Wave, Fire Rock) and images (e.g., volcanoes, palm trees, surfers and hula dancers) that evoke Hawaii. The beers’ outer packaging shows a map of Hawaii and the location of the Kona brewery, and encourages purchasers to “visit our brewery and pubs whenever you are in Hawaii.”

Continue Reading Latest Decision in Kona Beer Branding False Advertising Case