The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing the constitutionality of actions taken by the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (the regulator visiting today's class) in enforcing "tied-house" laws, or statutes intended to limit the influence of alcohol companies over their downstream distributors and retailers in advertising.
Paul Franson of Napa Valley Register in his July 2015 article "Tied-house laws continue to confound wineries" describes these laws as "archaic" and characterizes the regulators' enforcement of them as misguided and overzealous. He provides the historical context that these laws were intended to stymie attempts at vertical integration by Prohibition-era market participants following its repeal and he reports they are now implicating wineries for trivial actions like inadvertently referencing the industry events and festivals at which their wines are featured.
The Ninth Circuit this month is questioning whether the "threat" of vertical integration through such advertising, as envisaged by the original law, is even credible anymore... if not, such statutes may infringe the First Amendment right to free speech on the part of alcohol companies and wineries. We shall see how the Courts decide...
Sources:
P. Franson, "Tied-house laws continue to confound wineries," Napa Valley Register: http://napavalleyregister.com/lifestyles/food-and-cooking/wine/columnists/paul-franson/tied-house-laws-continue-to-confound-wineries/article_7014b0e0-6c6d-5d07-8688-f8a215613ff8.html
B. Hatef, "Ninth Circuit Opinion Calls Into Question Constitutionality of California Tied-House Laws," Alcohol Law Advisor: http://www.alcohollawadvisor.com/2016/01/ninth-circuit-opinion-calls-into-question-constitutionality-of-california-tied-house-laws/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
No comments:
Post a Comment