Branded Malt Beverage Glassware—Florida Distributors, Take Note!
After a 22-year hiatus in issuing these types of clarifying documents, the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco released “Information Bulletin 2019-001” this month, specifying how malt beverage distributors can give branded glassware to licensed alcohol beverage retailers.
June 13, 2019 at 10:12 AM
4 minute read
After a 22-year hiatus in issuing these types of clarifying documents, the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco released “Information Bulletin 2019-001” this month, specifying how malt beverage distributors can give branded glassware to licensed alcohol beverage retailers (called vendors in Florida law, which includes bars and restaurants).
As a starting point, it is important to remember that federal and state alcohol beverage laws generally prohibit an alcohol manufacturer or distributor from giving anything “of value” either directly or indirectly to a restaurant, bar, nightclub, liquor store, grocery store or any type of retail establishment that holds a retail liquor license, unless a specific exception in the law applies. These “tied-house laws” were put in place after the repeal of the Prohibition to, in part, insulate alcohol beverage retailers from undue influence by “big, bad, and rich” manufacturers and distributors of these products. The idea was that certain “evils” emerged from cozy relationships between the three tiers (manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer). As the industry evolved over the last 90 years, a patchwork of legal exceptions emerged, which allow breweries, distilleries, wineries and wholesale distributors to provide certain enumerated things/services to retail alcohol beverage establishments.
One such exception was expanded during the 2018 Florida legislative session, which I covered briefly in a prior post. As of Oct. 1, 2018, Florida malt beverage distributors can now give branded glassware to retail accounts under certain circumstances. Informational Bulletin 2019-001 highlights the nuances of this law, including:
- Glassware has to be branded. While not expressly stated in the bulletin, the point of this requirement is that the glassware should be about promoting the brand to consumers, and not used as a freebie to induce retailers to buy that beer product instead of a competing brand.
- A distributor can only give away glassware it got for free from the brewery (manufacturer) or importer. If the distributor had to buy the glassware in the first place, it cannot pass it along for free to the retailer.
- To get the free glassware, the retailer's liquor license has to allows it to sell beer. This makes sense because … well … would you give a glass with a Miller logo on it to a restaurant that isn't allowed to sell Miller?
- A max of 10 cases of glassware can be given to each licensed retailer premises (location) per calendar year. The bulletin clarifies that up to 24 pieces of glassware can come in a case and that “glassware” means a “single-serving glass container that can hold no more than 23 ounces of liquid.” Note that for multiunit restaurants or bars, the 10-case limit applies per location (liquor license).
- Both distributors and retailers must keep detailed records of gifted glassware for a period of three years, including:
- The name and address of the recipient, and the name of the employee/agent who received the glassware;
- Both the retailer and distributor's alcohol beverage license numbers;
- The date given;
- A description of the glassware and quantity;
- The original purchaser's invoice price of the glassware; and
- The charge to the recipient, if any.
For any Florida restaurant or bar owners who may be reading this, keep in mind that if your beer wholesaler is telling you that you need to buy this branded glassware from them, it may be because they have already given you your limit for the year, or they may have had to buy the glasses from the brewery (which means they aren't allowed to give it to you for free). Also, just because your distributor is offering something to you doesn't mean you can take it without question. It is your obligation to make sure that what you are receiving is legal, and that you have records to back it up.
Valerie Haber is a shareholder at GrayRobinson in Miami. She is a Florida liquor license and alcohol beverage law attorney in the firm's alcohol beverage and food law department.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250