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
© 2024 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 AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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