New Craft Beverage Tastes Run Afoul of Distribution Laws
While these are all defined as malt or brewed beverages for distribution purposes under the Liquor Code, there are also new craft beverages like "canned cocktails" and wine-based beverages having different manufacturing origins that create other legal implications.
February 16, 2020 at 02:39 PM
7 minute read
Cheers to the bevy of new craft beverages appealing to new consumer tastes and dramatically changing the alcohol manufacturing industry. Craft breweries, local wineries and craft distilleries have taken innovation in the industry to new heights. Some of these craft beverages can be traditional beer with a twist, literally, ciders, mead and the new emerging "kid on the block," hard seltzer. While these are all defined as malt or brewed beverages for distribution purposes under the Liquor Code, there are also new craft beverages like "canned cocktails" and wine-based beverages having different manufacturing origins that create other legal implications.
While hard seltzer is the new darling of the alcohol ball and it's typically made by a brewery as a malt base or sugar fermentation, it can also be made with a distillation from a distillery. Craft distilleries are starting to produce some unique "canned cocktails" and wineries continue to push out ciders that also can be made by a brewery license as long as it does not exceed 8.5% alcohol by volume (ABV). Wineries are creating wine-based products that have similar taste profiles to other products offered by breweries and distilleries. The difference in today's industry is that there was a time when distilleries, wineries and breweries all competed for the same consumer but with distinct flavor profiles and marked ABV differentials. Now, the taste profiles have merged with similar ABV offerings yet, depending upon the category of manufacturer producing the product, the distribution channel can vary greatly.
Pennsylvania is no different and many states face similar challenges to this new emerging marketplace in the alcohol industry. Surprisingly, beer which is generally the lowest ABV product of the three manufacturing categories, faces the most regulation and tax. In Pennsylvania, like many states, breweries (except for the few in-state breweries that choose self-distribution) are bound by franchise laws and must appoint an exclusive beer wholesaler to represent its products in the retail trade in defined territories. The Pennsylvania Liquor Code and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board opinions mandate that these relationships are perpetual and cannot be terminated except for good cause. These franchise laws were necessary over a half a century ago to protect wholesalers from larger breweries. Now, wholesalers are usually larger than the breweries they represent, and it has become a significant obstruction to smaller breweries that cannot freely change their wholesale partner without the threat of an expensive court battle.
Breweries pay the Pennsylvania Malt Beverage Excise Tax and distilleries do not pay any state excise tax. While wineries pay a promotional board assessment, wineries, like distilleries, are not burdened with franchise laws and enjoy up to five satellite locations, which act as tasting rooms and offer bottle and case sales. Breweries only get two additional taproom locations and have to maintain at least 10 seats and offer food, while wineries and distilleries have no such requirement. These differences are significant and would have an even more drastic effect on the brewery industry in the state but for convoluted distribution laws that affect each category of manufacturer differently.
Beer, cider, seltzer and mead can be made by a brewery license and distributed by an importing distributor (also known as a beer wholesaler) which can sell it to retailers and other smaller distributors. Distributors may sell these products by the can, bottle, six-pack, 12-pack, case and keg and retail licenses can sell up to 192 ounces of these products; our famous Pennsylvania two six-packs rule. If a hard seltzer is made by a distillery, it cannot be sold by distributors or retailers for off-premises consumption since distilled spirits are controlled by our Pennsylvania State Store system. A winery can make mead and cider and, as long as it is below 8.5% ABV, distributors and retailers can sell those products to consumers, but those manufacturers are not bound by the beer franchise laws with its wholesale partner because their licenses are granted under Article 5 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, as opposed to Article 4 where the beer franchise laws are located. Wineries that make wine coolers, mead and cider over 8.5% ABV, or traditional wine, can have their product sold by retailers if the retailer obtains a wine expanded permit (WEP), which allows the sale of four bottles of wine to-go.
Distilled spirits remain locked up by Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board wholesale and retail state store system. Just walk into your local Pennsylvania State Store and you will find a loosely organized collection of various products including canned cocktails, "alcohol concentrates" which fit into a Keurig-like machine to make a canned cocktail, wine cooler, canned wine, sparkling canned wine, mead and cider over 8.5%. These state store offerings and their shelf space must be approved by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. At the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board meeting on Sept. 11, 2019, the board approved 19 new listings for flavored alcohol concentrates for Anheuser-Busch alone. If a retailer wants to sell these items, it must purchase them from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board wholesale system (unless they are directly distributed by a "Pennsylvania" limited winery or distillery). If the retailer has a WEP, it can sell the wine-based products for off-premises consumption but cannot sell the distillery-based products in the same manner.
While all three categories of manufacturing do have self-distribution rights directly to retail, those manufacturers have to be Pennsylvania licensed or they do not obtain those benefits. In addition, depending upon whether you are categorized as a malt or brewed beverage, a wine, or a distilled spirit, there are multiple distribution models that do not completely overlap and are certainly unique to some and exclusive to others. Ironically, some canned cocktails and wine-based products are lower ABV than malt beverages that enjoy wider distribution channels than the 600 or so Pennsylvania State Stores.
The alcohol industry is changing rapidly. Seltzer is not a fad and is already a $500 million industry projected to grow to $2.5 billion in just a few years. It is low- or no-carb, gluten free and sugar free. Canned cocktails can make similar claims but are excluded from the Pennsylvania retail and distributor marketplace except for state stores. Yard's Pynk Sparkling Berry Ale and Troegs 402 Raspberry Lime Tart Ale compete for the same consumer as Cosmic Cider from Lavery Brewery and East End's Along Came A Cider. Now, along came a seltzer from Sam Adams in Truly. What will this iconic American brewery, which just merged with Dogfish Head with its distillery just across the border in Delaware, do next? Even America's oldest brewery, D.G. Yuengling & Son, Inc., recently announced a new brand, named Flight, a low-carb and low-calorie light beer. Clearly, consumers are driving the industry to new boundaries.
The alcohol manufacturing industry is vastly different from the era when our distribution laws were framed. In that time period, the stakeholders in the alcohol industry have staunchly defended their ground. It will be interesting to follow whether protectionism yields to progression, consumer convenience and distribution modernization.
Theodore J. Zeller III, co-chair of the Norris McLaughlin's liquor law practice group, focuses his practice on liquor law, regulatory licensing, commercial transactions, real estate transactions, and litigation. He was lead counsel in a beer rights case brought against the world's largest brewers and is now general counsel to D.G. Yuengling & Son, Inc. and the Brewers of Pennsylvania. He frequently writes for the firm's liquor law blog, "Legal Liquor."
Matthew B. Andersen concentrates his practice on business law and liquor law. In his liquor law practice at the firm, he works with all tiers of the alcohol industry, advising manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers. He assists breweries, distilleries, wineries, wholesalers, distributors, restaurants and hotels on obtaining and transferring liquor licenses.
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 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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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