Pa. Positions Itself as a Favorable Destination for Alcohol Manufacturers
In a recent article, the New York Times featured the role craft brewery expansion is having on reviving formerly downtrodden commercial districts and bringing a new wave of tourism into states through locally focused trails and tours.
March 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM
7 minute read
In a recent article, the New York Times featured the role craft brewery expansion is having on reviving formerly downtrodden commercial districts and bringing a new wave of tourism into states through locally focused trails and tours. The popularity and positive impact craft breweries, distilleries and wineries bring to local economies has not gone unnoticed by state legislatures who have relaxed traditional alcohol beverage laws to both support these important local businesses and to meet the demands of modern alcohol consumers. While each state has shifted toward opening up their regulatory structure to support the craft alcohol movement, over the past several years Pennsylvania has positioned itself a highly desirable location to both strike out as a craft producer as well as a favorable destination for out-of-state manufactures to expand their footprint.
Destruction of the Three-Tiered System
When Prohibition ended in the mid-1930s and states were faced with deciding on how to regulate the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol, each state and the federal government enhanced regulations to prohibit the intermingling of the three tiers of alcohol manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. Known as “tied house” laws, these laws seek to maintain strict separation between each tier to lessen concerns regarding undue influence and control. By way of example, Sections 4-411 and 4-443 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code makes it unlawful for any alcohol entity, including its individuals owners and employees, from having an interest, direct or indirect in another alcohol entity of a different tier. Aside from strict ownership considerations, these laws together with related provisions also extend to other areas such as the supplier's inability to set or control the price of its product through the route to market or to influence the on-site advertising or marketing of its products. In short, these restrictions have been particularly onerous on alcohol manufacturers given the philosophical belief underlying these legal restrictions that strict separation is necessary and that wholesalers and retailers need to be protected from negative influences by a more powerful manufacturing class. These laws, however, have been significantly relaxed throughout Pennsylvania when it comes to in-state craft alcohol producers.
Limited Wineries
Under Pennsylvania law, wineries that produce less than 200,000 gallons of wine, cider or mead per year can qualify as a “limited winery” pursuant to 47 P.S. Section 5-505.2. In calculating this production, the PLCB does not set a minimum (only a maximum) for production and does not count production by the winery via its ownership structure outside of the Pennsylvania. Coupled with Pennsylvania's lack of a residency requirement for in-state wineries, this means that an out-of-state winery can be licensed as a Pennsylvania limited winery with the related privileges identified below without having to fully set up production in the state.
Once licensed, a Pennsylvania limited winery is able to do business in each tier despite the general prohibition of tied house laws. More specifically, a limited winery is able to sell its wine directly to the PLCB, to other Pennsylvania alcohol manufacturers such as distilleries and breweries, to retail licenses and to the public for on-premise and off-premise consumption. In other words, a limited winery is able to function simultaneously as a manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer allowing it to control and maintain all profits and related advertising from its products.
Due to recent legislation, limited wineries are also allowed to sell other Pennsylvania produced alcohol products from other in-state manufacturers so long as the total sales of the other Pennsylvania products do not exceed 50 percent of the wineries own annual sales. This is significant, as it allows limited wineries to function nearly like a full retail licensee without shelling out the $100,000 to $500,000 required to purchase a retail restaurant (R) license. But if a winery were interested in acquiring a retail license, including a full R license or hotel license, which would allow the winery to sell any and all alcohol products, it is explicitly permitted to do so.
In addition, limited wineries are afforded five board-approved locations off of their original winery license where they can sell their products, other Pennsylvania manufacturers products, and/or develop a full restaurant or hotel.
Limited Distilleries
Pennsylvania limited distilleries likewise share a number of the rights outlined above for limited wineries. To qualify as a limited distillery under Pennsylvania law, the distillery may not produce more than 100,000 gallons of distilled liquor per year, 47 P.S. Section 505.4. Similar to wineries, however, there is no minimum or residency requirement allowing for greater flexibility for qualifying as a limited distillery.
Once licensed, a limited distillery may operate its business through each tier by selling its product at both wholesaler and retail to the PLCB, to other Pennsylvania alcohol manufacturers such as distilleries and breweries, to retail licenses and to the public for on-premise and off-premise consumption. Limited distilleries are also permitted to open “Pennsylvania bars” by selling the products of other Pennsylvania manufacturers subject to the 50 percent threshold or go onto the market for a full retail license. Limited distilleries are further given the opportunity to open five board approved locations with the same rights as those its primary location.
Limited distilleries, as well as limited wineries and breweries, are further allowed to obtain an annual farmer's market permit which allows them the ability to participate in an unlimited number of farmer's markets throughout the year to offer samples of their products and sales to-go. Limited distilleries, limited wineries, and breweries are also permitted to participate in, i.e. sample and sell products for on-premise and off-premise consumption, alcohol and food expositions off their licensed premises so long as the intent of the event is to promote and educate attendees regarding Pennsylvania products.
Pennsylvania Brewers
Pennsylvania brewers share a number of the same privileges as limited wineries and distilleries, but to a lesser extent. First, like limited wineries and distilleries Pennsylvania brewers are able to initially self-distribute their products to beer retailers as well as the public for on-premise or off-premise consumption. However, unlike limited wineries and distilleries, if a brewery chooses to sign on with a beer wholesaler and grants that wholesaler primary distribution rights for its products then the brewery forever relinquishes its rights to self-distribute. Second, while breweries are similarly afforded secondary locations, they are limited to two such additional locations instead of the five given to limited wineries and distilleries. And third, while breweries are able to sell other Pennsylvania alcohol products (subject to the same 50-percent restriction) if they want to obtain a full retail privileges they are limited to doing so at their primary location either through applying for a brewpub license, hotel and/or restaurant license.
Despite receiving arguably less benefits than their wine and spirits counterparts, breweries who set up operations in Pennsylvania still receive a number of advantages over and above what is afforded in similar states. For this reason, Pennsylvania has not only taken the lead as the No. 1 producing state for craft beer according to the Brewers Association over major players like California or Colorado, but out-of-state brewers are looking to set up their own in-state breweries to take advantage of Pennsylvania's favorable legal structure. For example, Goose Island, a Chicago-based brewery owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev, just set up their own Brewhouse in Philadelphia to reap the benefits of Pennsylvania's favorable laws.
Given the flexibility and extent of the rights afforded to Pennsylvania alcohol producers there is little question that other wineries, distilleries and breweries will look to Pennsylvania as a lead candidate for opening or expanding their locations.
Alva C. Mather is a partner in the health sciences department of Pepper Hamilton, resident in the Philadelphia office. She is chair of the firm's alcoholic beverage industry practice group and co-chair of the food and beverage industry practice group.
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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
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