As beverage manufacturers mull the creation and distribution of cannabidiol (CBD)-infused products, the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) recent actions regarding an approved CBD drug merit exploration. CBD is one of many chemicals in the cannabis plant, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that CBD does not produce the same euphoric effect as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s psychoactive component.

In June, FDA approved the first drug comprised of an active ingredient (CBD) derived from marijuana, Epidiolex. FDA approved the CBD oral solution for patients two years of age and older who have seizures associated with two forms of severe epilepsy. According to DEA and FDA, the CBD in Epidiolex is extracted from the cannabis plant and is a purified drug substance. Though it is derived from the cannabis plant, the FDA-approved drug has no more than 0.1 percent residual THC.

Last week, DEA announced an order scheduling Epidiolex under the least restrictive schedule of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), schedule V. Notably, DEA still considers marijuana (which includes industrial hemp) and marijuana compounds other than Epidiolex to be schedule I controlled substances under the CSA. As a result, beverage manufacturers should carefully consider all legal implications prior to developing products that contain CBD. Continue Reading DEA Schedules a FDA-Approved CBD Drug

Craft distillers know the value of a good trademark. The name of a particular spirit, a logo, or a label design can be vitally important to a brand’s identity (and a distiller’s bottom line).  They also know how complicated—and legally fraught—branding can be. For better or worse, trademark disputes involving alcohol beverage products are becoming increasingly common. The disputes that make it to court provide valuable insight that could prevent future legal headaches surrounding the selection, protection, and enforcement of alcohol beverage trademarks.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Fall 2018.

The recent US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan opinion strikes down a Michigan statue and authorizes out-of-state retailers to sell and ship wine directly to Michigan consumers. Lebamoff Enterprises v. Snyder, E.D. Mich. Case No. 17-10191 (Sept. 28, 2018). More fundamentally, the Lebamoff decision underscores the stakes in the upcoming (as of September 27) Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Byrd v. Tenn. Wine and Spirits Retailers Ass’n.

The Lebamoff case involves 2016 legislation that amended Michigan law to: (1) make it easier for in-state retailers to ship directly to consumers by employing third-party carriers and (2) prohibit completely the sale and shipment of alcohol beverages to Michigan consumers by out-of-state retailers. The plaintiffs include an Indiana retail chain, its owner and several Michigan wine consumers.

The Lebamoff opinion first recaps the familiar dormant Commerce Clause analysis that: (a) asks whether the challenged law discriminates against interstate commerce or favors in-state interests over out-of-state interests; and (b) examines the state’s justifications for the law to see if they advance a legitimate local purpose that reasonable alternatives cannot adequately advance. Not surprisingly, the district court had little trouble concluding that the challenged law—which facially discriminates between in-state and out-of-state retailers—favors in-state interests and discriminates against interstate commerce. Continue Reading Recent Retailer Direct Shipping Opinion Illustrates Stakes in Upcoming Supreme Court Review

The “final word” may be in sight in a long-running dispute over state residency requirements imposed on applicants for retail alcohol beverage licenses as well as more fundamental questions about state powers under the 21st Amendment.

As anticipated last July in the Alcohol Law Advisor blog, a single sentence order of the US Supreme Court issued on September 27 granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (Tennessee Retailers) requesting the high court to review lower court decisions that invalidated Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for retail license applicants.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the Tennessee law at issue and held that, “a three-tier system can still function” without the two-year durational residency restriction imposed by Tennessee. The 6th Circuit quoted a 1984 Supreme Court decision: “The central purpose of the [Twenty-first Amendment] was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.” The court went on to analyze the Tennessee restrictions and found that they violate the dormant commerce clause, a legal concept designed to prevent states from engaging in economic protectionism. Continue Reading US Supreme Court to Review State Residency Requirements

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) expects to publish tomorrow Interim Regulations authorizing the refund of beer, wine, and spirits excise taxes in connection with the 2017 tax reform act’s reduced rates and credits. The Interim Regulations specify:

  1. Claims must be filed with the National Revenue Center of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).
  2. Claims must be filed on TTB Form 5620.8.
  3. A separate claim is required for entries made at each US port or internal revenue region.

The interim regulations will be effective on the date of publication (expected to be August 16, 2018).

CBP also initiated a 60-day comment period that will provide interested parties with opportunities to raise questions or identify issues that are not addressed in the interim regulations.

Please let us know if you have any questions about this development.

As more states legalize the recreational use of marijuana, beer servers will undoubtedly face situations in which a patron is too impaired to drive due to the consumption of both cannabis and alcohol. State laws do not provide a crosswalk of breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) limits and nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a driver’s body fluids. But a few states have established limits on the nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of THC that may be present in a driver’s blood or urine. States will continue to create and modify statutory and regulatory schemes focused on marijuana impairment. In doing so, state legislatures will likely revisit the policy discussions on limits for alcohol consumption.

Read the full article. 

Originally published in The New Brewer, July/August 2018.

Last week, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) published a TTB Procedure governing the transfer in bond of beer between breweries of different ownership. See TTB Procedure 2018-1 (July 17, 2018). In bond transfers between breweries of different ownership were authorized by the 2017 tax reform act and like many provisions of that act, the transfer provision is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2019.

Some highlights:

  1. The beer transfers can include both packaged and bulk beer.
  2. Transferred beer can be re-consigned while in transit or returned to the shipping brewery.
  3. Most recordkeeping and recording rules are the same as the current regulations governing transfers between breweries of the same ownership.
  4. Because the 2017 tax reform act’s lower tax rates apply to beer “produced” by the removing brewery, beer transferred in bulk does not benefit from the lower rates if the receiving brewer makes no changes or only de minimis changes to the transferred beer.
  5. For excise tax purposes, a beer is “produced” by a brewer if it is “brewed by fermentation or produced by the addition of water or other liquids during any state of production.” Blending alone does not qualify as “production.”
  6. Packaged beer that was transferred does not receive any lower rate of tax and will be taxed at the $18/barrel rate upon removal.
  7. Absent evidence of theft or diversion, in-transit losses of up to 2 percent are permitted without the need to file a report or a claim with TTB.
  8. Bulk containers used to transfer beer between breweries are subject to certain marking requirements.

On October 4-5, CLE International will host the 23rd Annual Wine, Beer & Spirits Law Conference in Chicago, Illinois. Those attending will include the alcohol beverage industry’s leading practitioners, including in-house counsel for producers, distributors and retailers, as well as industry attorneys, and federal and state regulators. Conference topics include:

  • Updates on TTB developments and trends
  • An overview of recent developments in alcohol trade practice and trademark law
  • How consolidation in both tiers is making antitrust law relevant to distribution
  • Tough ethical issues that frequently confront in-house and outside counsel to companies in the alcohol beverage industry

McDermott partner Marc Sorini serves as co-chair for the event and will also present. Other McDermott presenters will be Jon Dubrow and Bill Schuman.

Click here for the full agenda and registration information.

The latest development in a lengthy legal challenge to advertising restrictions in Missouri’s tied house laws and regulations raises practical economic issues for the alcohol beverage industry and significant legal and policy issues for legislators and regulators at all levels of government. On June 28, Judge Douglas Harpool of the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri filed a decision in Missouri Broadcasters Association vs. Dorothy Taylor. The Missouri Broadcasters Association (MBA) is a trade association representing media outlets. Two licensed Missouri retailers were also plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ms. Dorothy Taylor is the Supervisor of the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (DATC).

The basic issue in the case is whether several Missouri alcohol beverage advertising restrictions violate the plaintiffs’ commercial speech rights protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The June District Court decision follows a bench trial held in February 2018. The trial occurred as the result of prior legal proceedings culminating in a 2017 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which found that the MBA’s amended complaint “plausibly demonstrates that the challenged provisions [of Missouri’s tied house law] do not directly advance the government’s asserted substantial interest, are more extensive than necessary and unconstitutionally compel speech and association.”

Perhaps the most important Missouri law challenged in this litigation is an exception in the tied house laws that authorizes a manufacturer to pay for advertising that lists “two or more affiliated retail businesses selling its products” subject to four conditions:

(a) The advertisement shall not contain the retail price of the product;

(b) The listing of the retail businesses shall be the only reference to such retail businesses in the advertisement;

(c) The listing of the retail businesses shall be relatively inconspicuous in relation to the advertisement as a whole; and

(d) The advertisement shall not refer only to one retail business or only to a retail business controlled directly or indirectly by the same retail business.

This language may be familiar to many practitioners and regulators as a nearly identical provision appears in the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) tied house regulations. Laws and regulations of several states include similar express exceptions and TTB regulations are incorporated by reference in the trade practices regulations of other states. Innumerable TTB and state tied house laws and regulations restrict advertising in similar ways and may be invalidated if the analysis in Missouri Broadcasters is applied by other courts and ultimately upheld by federal appellate courts.

Other Missouri laws and regulations that were successfully challenged by MBA in the trial court prohibit (a) media advertising of price discounts, (b) beer and wine coupons, (c) outdoor advertising of discounts by retailers and (d) below cost advertising.

Unlike many cases based solely on theoretical legal arguments and the text of laws and regulations, the trial in the Missouri case resulted in a wide-ranging inquiry that included expert witnesses on advertising and the level of effort invested by the Missouri DATC in enforcing the challenged laws and regulations. The court’s decision suggests that the state struggled to provide any credible evidence that the challenged laws “directly reduce[] overconsumption of alcohol and underage drinking.”

The court found that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony provided substantial evidence “that there is in fact no demonstrative relationship between media advertising of alcohol and overall consumption rates of underage drinking…The State failed to present any evidence contradicting the testimony, empirical studies, and statistical analysis relied on by the Plaintiffs’ expert.”

The court agreed with the plaintiffs and cited language from the 8th Circuit decision that “the multiple inconsistencies within the regulations poke obvious holes in any potential advancement” of the state’s interest, “to the point the regulations do not advance the interest at all.” This finding is a threat to dozens of federal and state alcohol beverage laws that are riddled with exceptions that allow alcohol beverage advertising in one context and expressly prohibit the same advertising in another context (e.g., prohibiting exterior signs and permitting indoor signs).

Because the challenged Missouri laws restrict commercial speech rights protected by the First Amendment, the court also awarded legal fees to MBA and the retailer plaintiffs.

Advertising can be removed from the “marble cake” of state and federal tied house restrictions without dire consequences for regulators. If the reasoning in Missouri Broadcasters survives, the most significant effects will occur in intra-industry negotiations where parties will determine how advertising costs and activities are apportioned across the three-tier system.

Before proclaiming the death of the three-tier system, hundreds of state licensing and tied house laws have nothing to do with advertising. Prohibitions on ownership interests in more than one tier of the alcohol beverage industry are not affected by the recent decision along with substantial restrictions on industry trade practices other than advertising.

Finally, the reasoning in Missouri Broadcasters may have to survive another appeal and must be adopted by other courts to broadly affect house restrictions on advertising throughout the United States. Perhaps a state (or more likely a state with support from interested industry members) will develop credible evidence to support similar laws in other jurisdictions. For example, California aggressively defended analogous laws and regulations, which were ultimately upheld last year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a craft distiller, getting your products into the hands of consumers is, of course, critical to your business. As a general matter, state alcohol laws separate the alcohol beverage industry into three tiers (i.e., the three-tier system): the supplier tier, the wholesaler tier, and the retailer tier. To get its product to market, a supplier typically must sell to a wholesaler, which then must sell to a retailer.

Of course, state laws today contain a number of expectations to the three-tier system – for example, many states now license pub distilleries, which may produce spirits on-site (typically a function of a retailer). But generally speaking, a distiller must sell its products through wholesalers. This article will explore the terms that govern the relationship between a distiller and its wholesaler.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit, Summer 2018.