TTB COLAs and Formulas

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

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently began testing a new version of its Permits Online system. The new interface aims to provide several big improvements for users. Among them:

  1. Currently certain types of amendments must be filed individually, forcing industry members to wait for approval of their first amendment to submit their second. The new system should allow for most types of amendments to be bundled together into a single submission thereby reducing wait times;
  1. Personal Questionnaires, which are currently filed separately from a permit, will be filed under the same interface as an amendment to add new personnel; and
  1. Users can enter company-wide changes once and then populate to all permits held by a company.

TTB has not yet released a timeframe for these changes.

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

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently notified holders of permits that were originally filed in paper of plans to move all permits to the Permits Online (PONL) system this fall. This could lead to substantial delays due to the volume of permits included.  Industry members who wish to submit requests ahead of that time can send their information (EIN, Permit and Registry Numbers) to Permits.Online@ttb.gov and enter Permits Online Data Load in the subject line of the email. Filing amendments electronically has historically been significantly faster using TTB’s PONL system.

Arthur DeCelle wrote this bylined article describing how brewers can use product labels, point of sale (POS) advertising, social networks, and other media to tell customers about their environmental responsibility efforts. Such information “must be truthful and substantiated by evidence [and] must not be deceptive to reasonable consumers,” Mr. DeCelle wrote, urging brewers to “carefully consider the language you use and any potential for consumer deception [regarding] false or deceptive environmental claims.”

Read the full article.

Originally published in New Brewer, March/April 2017.

On March 13, the European Commission approved a report that calls on members of the alcohol beverage industry to develop a comprehensive self-regulatory system of ingredient and nutritional labeling for beer, wine, and distilled spirits. The Commission is composed of representatives of each member nation of the European Union (EU) with a range of administrative responsibilities and authority to develop and propose legislation for consideration by the European Parliament.

The European Commission characterizes access to ingredient and nutrition information as a right of EU consumers, and called on industry members to develop a self-regulatory proposal over the next year. Current EU policy on alcohol beverage labeling is analogous to US policy. The EU regulation on food labeling exempts alcohol beverages containing more than 1.2 percent alcohol-by-volume.

The European Commission proposal warrants careful attention by US alcohol beverage suppliers across all beverage categories. The initial industry response by European suppliers will likely start a lengthy process leading to new ingredient disclosures.

US regulations are largely based on the presumption that consumers have a working knowledge of ingredients in alcohol beverages. Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) and its predecessor agency considered and rejected mandatory ingredient labeling proposals several times since 1970s. TTB’s most recent assessment of ingredient and nutritional labeling of alcohol beverages was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in 2005 soliciting public input on the existing TTB policy. No further rulemaking activity followed the TTB inquiry.

Existing TTB regulations focus on disclosures of certain ingredients that pose unique health risks or allergic reactions. Industry members are permitted to disclose ingredients on a voluntary basis.  A few alcohol beverages are subject to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, which require comprehensive ingredient and nutritional labeling.

Many US products are exported for consumption in the EU. If a new system is adopted in the EU, producers in the US must provide ingredient and nutritional information to their customers overseas with no corresponding requirements in their home markets. EU suppliers are major players in the US market and may decide to voluntarily provide the same information to their American customers that they will ultimately have to provide in their home markets.

These dynamics will likely reinvigorate calls by consumer advocacy organizations and government agencies (e.g., Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) in support of ingredient labeling of alcohol beverages in the US. In the current era of dwindling government resources, the European Commission’s call for an industry self-regulatory initiative provides an opening for a similar initiative in the US. Industry members and associations should monitor developments in the EU and consider appropriate responses directly to the EU initiative and to analogous proposals in the US.

An English version of the European Commission proposals is available here.

On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” A link to Executive Oder 13771 appears here.  The Order provides:

  1. For Fiscal Year 2017 (which ends September 30, 2017):
    1. For each new “regulation” published for notice and comment “or otherwise promulgated,” the agency in question must “identify” two existing regulations to be repealed. Notably, the Order does not require the repeal to be concurrent with the publication or promulgation of the new regulation.
    2. For Fiscal Year 2017, each agency must ensure that the total incremental costs of all new and repealed regulations shall not exceed zero, unless otherwise required by law or as consistent with the advice of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Order does not specify whether the costs in question represent costs to the agency, costs to the government or total societal costs. It also does not provide any guidance on how to calculate such costs.
    3. To the extent permitted by law, the costs of any new regulations shall be offset by the elimination of costs associated with at least two existing regulations. Once again, the Order provides no guidance on what constitute costs of a regulation or how to calculate such costs.
    4. The OMB is directed to provide agencies with guidance on how to implement the Order.
  2. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2018 (which begins October 1, 2017):
    1. The semi-annual Unified Regulatory Agenda for each agency must: (i) identify for each new regulation “that increases incremental cost,” two offsetting regulations; and (ii) provide an approximation of the total costs or savings for each new and repealed regulation.
    2. Each regulation approved by the OMB shall be included in the Unified Regulatory Agenda.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, agencies may not issue new regulations that were not listed in the most recent Unified Regulatory Agenda.
    4. During the budgeting process, the OMB shall notify agencies of the total costs per agency that will be allowed in issuing and repealing new regulations for the upcoming fiscal year.
    5. The OMB shall provide agencies with guidance on implementing the Order’s requirements.

Executive Oder 13771 applies to each “executive department or agency,” but leaves a number of government regulatory functions outside of its scope. These include agencies involved in military, national security, and foreign affairs functions, as well as any government organization arising from the Legislative or Judicial branches. Nevertheless, the Order applies to a vast swath of the federal bureaucracy.

On its face, Executive Order 13771 could have a significant impact on the pace of federal rulemaking during the Trump Administration. The “two-for-one” requirement, in particular, appears to be a blunt instrument aimed at shrinking the Code of Federal Regulations. Moreover, the explicit requirement for cost estimates and “zero” total costs flowing from the rulemaking process plainly seeks to halt the growth and costs of the federal administrative state.

But the jury remains out on the practical impact of Executive Order 13771. Longstanding observers of the federal bureaucracy will, no doubt, recall that the Paperwork Reduction Act (1980), Executive Order 12866 (1993), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and other measures all failed to noticeably slow the growth or improve the functioning of the administrative state. In that spirit, President Trump’s Executive Order leaves many questions unanswered:

  1. Much hinges on the interpretation of “costs” referenced throughout the Executive Order. Does this mean the costs to the Agency, the entire federal government or society at large? And, particularly if “costs” are defined broadly, how will agencies and/or the OMB calculate such costs? The OMB presumably must arrive at answers to these fundamental questions.
  2. While a “rule” has a defined meaning in administrative law, a “regulation” does not. While the Order purports to define the term, as every lawyer in an administrative practice knows, individual “sections” within the Code of Federal Regulations are called “regulations” and come in many sizes. Does an agency satisfy the “two-for-one” rule by replacing two one-sentence regulations with a single ten-sentence regulation? The opportunities to “game” the Executive Order’s mandate seem endless.
  3. The Executive Order might not withstand a legal challenge. While the President yields broad authority over most administrative agencies, nothing in current law authorizes a “two-for-one” rule. While a full analysis is beyond the scope of this note, on its face the Order seems to push the boundaries of what a President can mandate by Executive Order.

Finally, the Executive Order may accelerate the unfortunate trend of agencies to make rules through informal documents instead of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. During the past several decades, many agencies have sought to shortcut the rulemaking process by asserting that any number of substantive rules are mere “interpretations” not subject to notice-and-comment. Too often, the legal costs and potential for relationship damage involved in challenging such rules outweighs the benefit of a challenge. (For example, how willing is a heavily-regulated brewery, winery or distillery to engage in protracted litigation with the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau?)  As a result, usually the regulated public tacitly accepts this subversion of Administrative Procedures Act requirements – requirements that flow directly from the Fifth Amendment’s requirement for Due Process of Law. By making formal notice-and-comment rulemaking even more burdensome, Executive Order 13771 will likely accelerate the pace of regulation by internet posting, bottom-drawer regulation, letter ruling and other means that do not provide the regulated public with notice and an opportunity to comment on legal requirements that will affect them.

In the end, then, President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Regulations leaves many important questions unanswered and, like other like-minded actions before it (e.g., the Paperwork Reduction Act), may not progress the objective of simplifying and reducing the federal bureaucracy.

On January 23, 2017 the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) published a Temporary Rule and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to the new definition of hard cider. Congressional action required a new definition when Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code in December 2015 by enacting the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act. The Temporary Rule lays out TTB’s current thinking on regulations to implement the revised definition, while the NPRM requests comments on the regulations spelled out in the Temporary Rule.

We view the following provisions as most significant:

1. Requiring a new mandatory tax classification statement on all products eligible for the hard cider tax rate, effective January 1, 2018.

2. Requiring the words “sparking” or “carbonated” on all hard cider with carbonation in excess of 0.392 grams per 100 ml.

3. Codifying in the regulations (although this reflects longstanding TTB policy) that materials like honey, hops, spices and pumpkin may be added to hard cider without jeopardizing the hard cider tax rate.

4. Establishing a .009 gram per 100 ml tolerance for carbonation in cider.

5. Suggesting in the pre-amble that treating materials, regardless of source, could render a product ineligible for the hard cider rate if those materials imparts a fruit flavor other than apple (under the new regulations apple or pear).

6. Codifying in the regulations for the first time (although this reflects longstanding TTB policy) that the hard cider definition and most rules also apply to imported hard cider.

The current deadline for comments on the proposed regulations is March 24, 2017, but TTB generally grants reasonable extensions (typically 60 or 90 additional days) upon request.