Cocktails Good 'To-Go' in Fla.: Potential Liability for Portable Libations Providers
On July 1, the Florida executive order that helped restaurants survive earlier in 2020 by allowing "to-go cocktails" will take effect permanently, after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 148 into law on May 13.
June 24, 2021 at 11:13 AM
4 minute read
Food and BeverageOn July 1, the Florida executive order that helped restaurants survive earlier in 2020 by allowing "to-go cocktails" will take effect permanently, after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 148 into law on May 13. The executive order and the new law were designed to provide some much-needed economic relief to the restaurant industry in the wake of COVID-19, amid reduced capacity and reduced patronage. In 2020, almost all 50 states introduced or revised their existing "to-go" beverage policies, and now, Florida has made the change permanent.
Restaurant Requirements to Participate in 'To-Go' Drinks
In order to comply, restaurants need to:
- Have at least 2,500 square-feet of dining area;
- Be equipped to serve 150 persons at one time; and
- And derive at least 51% of its gross food and beverage revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages.
If the food service establishment meets these eligibility requirements, the law allows it to sell or deliver alcoholic beverages in a sealed container for off-premises consumption with several restrictions. Such sale or delivery:
- Must be accompanied by food within the same order;
- May include wine based or liquor-based beverages prepared by the establishment;
- May not include a bottle of distilled spirits sealed by a manufacturer;
- Must be in a container securely sealed that prevents the beverage from being consumed before removal from the premises and placed in a bag or container that is secured in such a manner that it is visibly apparent if it has been tampered with;
- Must include a dated receipt for the beverage and food; and
- Must conclude when the restaurant's food service ends for the day.
If the "to-go" drink is transported by vehicle, it must be in a locked compartment, trunk or area behind the last upright seat. It may not be transported by someone under the age of 21 and the vendor must ensure the legal age of the person taking delivery. If compliant, the "to-go" beverage is not considered an open container violation.
This content has been archived.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 AllDid 17 Drinks Lead to Woman's Death? Lawsuit Blames Casino
Not a Happy Birthday: Woman Sues Kyle G's Prime Seafood & Steaks After Severe Food Allergic Reaction
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
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