In a classic Granholm v. Heald situation involving a lack of parity between in-state and out-of-state distilleries, Washington state allows in-state distilleries the privileges of direct sale and shipment of their liquors to Washington residents and restricts out-of-state distilleries from
Ashley Brandt Blogs
Latest from Ashley Brandt
Court finds statute barring retailer warehouse storage out of jurisdiction of alcoholic beverage control authority does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause. Finally, a Tennessee Wine case that is NOT about direct wine shipping.
We will look back to find that the greatest result of Tennessee Wine’s “test” allowing “each State leeway to enact the measures that its citizens believe are appropriate to address the public health and safety effects of alcohol use and
The Tennessee Wine Test? 6th Circuit falls in line with requiring evidence of out-of-state alcohol shipping restriction’s health and safety benefits in order to surmount a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge. The State says it wants to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
“However, the Court in Lebamoff did not hold that direct ship restrictions are always constitutional. The concurring opinion, which had the support of a majority of the panel, emphasized that the Court upheld Michigan’s statute because “the plaintiffs ha[d] not
1st Circuit closes ranks with those Circuits reading Tennessee Wine as requiring States prove alcohol laws discriminating against out-of-state interests affect health or safety goals or other legitimate interests
The Circuits are by and large falling into line regarding the implications and procedures of Tennessee Wine when Dormant Commerce Clause challenges are brought against State alcohol-related laws and regulations. They are rejecting the notion that a summary dismissal of
Another court relies on the discounted cash flow analysis and not the simple multiple of gross profits for valuing distribution rights. Don’t worry, the DCA can result in acceptable numbers as well.
The old adage of taking a multiple of the gross profits earned by a beer distributor is the typical response you’ll receive in asking about the fair market value of the distribution rights for a given brand. We hear it
6th Circuit hears oral argument in Ohio wine shipping case. Questions regarding implementing an out-of-state license and the evidentiary basis for factual assertions regarding public health and safety justifications for shipping prohibitions predominate.
The appeal results from a challenge in Ohio. An out-of-state wine retailer and an in-state wine enthusiast brought suit against the state of Ohio looking for a judgment that the inability of the out-of-state wine shipper to obtain a retail
Court rejects wine supplier’s attempt to dismiss wine distributor’s lawsuit for improper termination and reasonable compensation finding termination for lack of prompt payment and assertions of improper credit require factual determination.
A Michigan Federal Court has ruled that the motion to dismiss stage is no place to test the merits of claims that a wine supplier’s termination of a distribution agreement with a wine distributor.
Cana Distributors, a Michigan based wholesaler
The 9th Circuit will be deciding whether Washington’s beer franchise law allows a supplier to terminate without cause and the case may provide some important precedent.
A Court’s grant of an injunction to a beer distributor prohibiting Constellation from moving its brands to a new wholesaler in Washington State has set the stage for a fully briefed and soon to be argued 9th Circuit case that
Valuable insight on packaging design and labeling offered in Court’s dismissal of claims that hard seltzer conveyed the impression it contained tequila. Saying “Margarita Hard Seltzer” is not the same as saying “Sparkling Margarita” or “Margarita Cocktail.”
Context is crucial. That’s the takeaway from this recent opinion out of a New York Federal Court dismissing consumer claims asserting that Coca Cola’s 12-pack Topo Chico branded Margarita Hard Seltzer packaging misleads consumers to thinking the product contains tequila
Court finds TTB label approval does not preclude Lanham Act false advertising claims in dispute between two brands looking to claim status as the “First African-American Owned Distillery in Kentucky.”
Every once in a while competing alcohol brands will get involved in a dispute over advertising. You’ll all remember the Bud/Miller dust-up over corn syrup from the 2019 Super Bowl advertising that took three years to shake out. There’s also