Close

Cerveza Fria? Zimne Piwo? Grocery Stores challenge Indiana’s restrictions on selling cold beer.

Posted on by Ashley Brandt

There are exceptions to the rule, but the rule keeps grocery stores and convenience stores from selling cold beer.  Strangely, under Indiana law, grocery stores can sell cold wine – which often has an alcohol content higher than beer.

The complaint (a full copy with exhibits is here) has an interesting argument related to craft beer – that because some craft beer manufacturers require cooling, facilities unable to sell cold beer cannot meet the requirements or sell the beer and are kept out of the marketplace for craft beer.

The point to this complaint, and the tie-in to one of the curious themes we’ve seen recently, is that the rational basis argument pops up here.  We saw this recently in the challenge to Kentucky’s regulations prohibiting grocery stores and convenience stores from selling liquor and wine.  The broader point is the recent push to challenge liquor laws alleging they have no rational basis under the equal protection guaranties of the constitution.  As with Kentucky, we will watch the progress of this suit to see where the Indiana court comes out on the issue.

Magic Hat v. West Sixth – A Lesson in Using Social Media to Supplant the Law?

Posted on by Ashley Brandt

For those of you looking for a full copy of the complaint that Magic Hat filed, along with all the exhibits, here it is.

Given the standards applied to social media by the recent TTB Circular, it’s fascinating to watch these two go right up to the line of not saying anything disparaging about a competitor’s “products” in their facebook and twitter feeds.

It will be interesting to see whether the social media campaign asking Magic Hat to drop its lawsuit will result in their capitulation.

TTB Circular 2013-1 applies winery, distilled spirit, and malt beverage advertising rules to every form of social media

Posted on by Ashley Brandt

The U.S. Tax and Trade Bureau released TTB Circular 2013-1, on May 13, 2013.  The circular is a welcome clarification that the TTB considers social media to be advertising and that the advertising is governed by already existing FAA Act rules and implementing regulations in the CFR.

Addressed to the “Proprietors of Bonded Wineries, Bonded Wine Cellars, Taxpaid Wine Bottling Houses, Beverage Distilled Spirits Plants, Breweries, Importers, Wholesalers and Others Concerned”… the circular applies to just about everyone.  Clarifying their role, the circular confirms the TTB’s regular review of advertisements in various media and the TTB’s view that social media, falls under the definition of “any other media”, contained in the CFR definitions for regulating the advertisement of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages:

TTB interprets “any other media” in the regulations to apply to advertising in all types of media, including types of media that did not exist when the regulations were originally adopted. 

In conjunction with the FAA Act, the implementing Code of Federal Regulations (27 CFR Parts 4 subpart G, 5 subpart H, and 7 subpart F) deal with the regulations for advertising wine, distilled spirits and malt beverages, respectively.  The mandatory disclosures that apply under the various subparts for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages apply to social media in the following ways:

Social Network Services (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Fan pages or pages created by industry members are considered advertisements under the FAA Act and the TTB regulations.  A home page, and subbed or tabbed pages associated with home page are one advertisement for the purposes of the Act, so the mandatory statements need only appear once on the fan page and these statements need to be:

Conspicuous and legible;

Clearly a part of the advertisement; and

Readily apparent to people viewing the ad (that is, they can’t be hidden or buried in an obscure location on the fan page).

Video Sharing Sites (YouTube, etc.)

Any videos about alcoholic beverages that are posted to a video sharing site by an industry member are advertisements if they’re calculated to induce sales in interstate or foreign commerce.  Mandatory statements about the brand or company should be placed in the “profile” of the poster and the regular advertisement requirements for video content apply if there is no “channel” or profile section to post the mandatory information to.  The TTB’s recommendation is to be safe and post the mandatory information on both the profile and in the content since downloadable videos are considered disseminated advertisements under the rules and regulations.

Blogs

If an industry member maintains a blog about itself  and discusses issues related to the company, its products, or the industry in general, the blog is considered by TTB to be an advertisement and is subject to TTB’s advertising regulations because it is a written statement by the industry member that is calculated to induce sales in interstate or foreign commerce.  So the mandatory disclosures apply.

Microblogs (Twitter, Tumblr, etc.)

The TTB considers the mandatory disclosures somewhat impractical for every post because of the 140 character limit associated with some microblogs.  So, industry members may include the mandatory statements on their microblog profile page.

Mobile Applications

The TTB considers mobile apps related to alcohol beverages to be advertisements because mobile apps are written or verbal statements, illustrations, or depictions that are in, or calculated to induce sales in, interstate or foreign commerce.  But they are consumer specialty advertisements, (27 CFR 6.84(b)(2)) as, “…items that are designed to be carried away by the consumer, such as trading stamps, nonalcoholic mixers, pouring racks, ash trays, bottle or can openers, cork screws, shopping bags, matches, printed recipes, pamphlets, cards, leaflets, blotters, post cards, pencils, shirts, caps, and visors.”  Accordingly, the only mandatory statement required to appear in the app is the company name or the brand name of the product.

Links and Quick Response Codes

These are regulated on a case by case basis, but the rule of thumb here is that the link or QR Code can’t be deceptive and the material it connects to will need to comply.
For everyone unfamiliar with the FAA Act.  The Act’s rules about advertisements are the umbrella for the advertising regulations linked the above.  In conjunction with the enacting regulations for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 205(f)) has long mandated that interstate advertisements:

Prevent deception of the consumer with respect to the products advertised and prohibit, irrespective of falsity, statements relating to:

  • age,
  • manufacturing processes,
  • analyses,
  • guaranties, and
  • scientific or irrelevant matters … likely to mislead the consumer;

Provide the consumer with adequate information as to:

  • the identity and quality of the products advertised,
  • the alcoholic content thereof, and
  • the person responsible for the advertisement;

Require an accurate statement:

  • informing the consumer of the percentage of neutral spirits … used and of the name of the commodity from which such neutral spirits have been distilled, or
  • in case of neutral spirits or of gin produced by a process of continuous distillation, the name of the commodity from which distilled;

Prohibit statements that are disparaging of a competitor's products or are:

  • false,
  • misleading,
  • obscene, or
  • indecent;

Prevent statements inconsistent with any statement on the labeling of the products advertised.  

As noted above, there’s nothing new in the content required of mandatory disclosures for industry members, and nothing new in the prohibitions on content already in place.  But, TTB Circular 2013-1, clarifies that new medias / social medias, are considered advertisements and that industry members should govern themselves accordingly.

New TTB Ruling: Brewers Don’t Need Certificate of Label Approval for Beer Sold or Shipped in the State Where It Was Bottled

Posted on by Ashley Brandt

Some fun news during CBC.  The first Malt Beverages Ruling of 2013, TTB Ruling 2013-1, is an interesting one.  The actual holding is excerpted verbatim for you below.  Beer made and sold in the same state doesn’t require certificate of label approval.  The other required labeling information for beer removed from the premises, (25 CFR part 27, subpart J), and the health warnings of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act obviously still apply – although the TTB made certain to remind everyone of that fact:

Held: The regulations implementing the FAA Act do not require brewers to obtain a certificate of label approval in order to bottle or pack malt beverages that will not be shipped or delivered for sale or shipment into another State. The regulations do not require a brewer to obtain either a certificate of label approval or a certificate of exemption for a domestically bottled malt beverage that will be sold exclusively in the State in which it was bottled.
Held further: Regardless of whether a domestically bottled malt beverage will be sold in interstate commerce, brewers must comply with all applicable marking, branding and labeling requirements under regulations implementing the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for all beer removed from the premises, and must comply with the health warning statement requirements imposed by the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act with regard to alcoholic beverages manufactured or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States.

Whisky Dispute Poses an Interesting Question About Comparative Advertising Limits

Posted on by Ashley Brandt

Just how far can you go in a commercial pitting your product against a competitor’s?  We may be set to find out soon.

Yesterday a federal judge entered a scheduling order setting an introductory timeline in a comparative advertising case between the makers of Crown Royal and Texas Crown Club whiskies.

The dispute arises over a commercial promoting Texas Crown Club where a cowboy walks into a bar (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) and gets insulted for apparently trying to quench his hankering for a whisky with something in the little purple bag Crown Royal uses to market itself.  Along with a camera-shot of the purple bag in the hand of the cowboy, a lady at the bar is heard to remark “We don’t drink that poison in this neck of the woods.”

In true cliché fashion, the cowboy is tossed from the bar followed by footage of the Texas Crown Club bottle next to a bag resembling the current Texas flag.

Upset with the commercial and the implication about “poison”, Crown Royal’s maker, Diageo, filed this complaint against Mexcor, Inc., the maker of Texas Crown.  While a portion of the complaint deals with trademark dilution, the central allegation relative to the advertising question comes under the guise of claiming that the statement about “poison” was meant to have at least some literal import:

By characterizing CROWN ROYAL whisky as “poison,” Defendant is falsely and misleadingly advertising, through literal statements and by necessary implication, that CROWN ROYAL whisky is a harmful, unsafe, and substandard product, that CROWN ROYAL whisky is inferior to TEXAS CROWN CLUB whisky, that CROWN ROYAL whisky is an inappropriate drink for Texans, or simply that CROWN ROYAL whisky tastes bad. Such advertising violates 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

We’d love to show you the commercials to let you decide what you think about all this, but the links to the commercial in the complaint that were previously available on Youtube have been taken down.  We will keep you posted on the developments here as they may end up having broad-reaching implications for comparative advertising.

Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved · Ashley W. Brandt