For those who didn’t see it, I had a op-ed in today’s LA Times (republished in the Chicago Tribune) about the latest story in the fight for wine consumer rights. In late November, a coalition of wine retailers from across the country asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if prohibiting interstate wine transactions is constitutional. In my op-ed, I explain why this battle is so critical.
Many readers were surprised to learn that just 13 states and DC allow consumers to order wine from out-of-state retailers — after all, there are thousands of wine shops online, and most seem willing to ship. Many California readers wrote me about recent wines they had ordered online from all across the country.
I’ve got some bad news: You’re breaking the law. In California, Senate Bill 118 (signed in 2005) prohibits out-of-state retailers from shipping into the state. As the law states, “any person who knowingly makes, participates in, transports, imports, or receives such a shipment is guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to Section 25617.” Technically, a retailer can only ship to the state if they have a physical presence in California or a license.
Some larger merchants have locations across the country or have jumped through the regulatory hoops required to legally ship. But many retailers are ignoring these laws, figuring that they’re too difficult for states to enforce. Wine nerds may remember when, about three years ago, wine.com started lobbying states to better enforce these laws.
Just because these laws aren’t well enforced, though, doesn’t mean they’re not worth worrying about. The law is the law — and an unjust, discriminatory law should be eliminated. Unless the Supreme Court takes this case, wine retailers will remain in Constitutional limbo, with virtually no rights under the commerce clause.
Suppose you live in Texas and find that perfect bottle — perhaps the wine you had on your first date with your spouse — at a California retailer. Too bad. Or maybe you’ve discovered a great deal on your favorite Sonoma Coast pinot noir, but it’s from an out-of-state shop. You’re probably out of luck. No other industry faces such discrimination. Wine consumers deserve a free market in wine, one in which any adult can purchase wine from wherever he or she wants.
One another note. Several commenters took issue with the gun analogy, USING ALL CAPS TO ACCUSE ME OF “UNTRUTHS.” These people should learn how to use Google. Just go to Impact Guns or one of its many competitors. There, you can order a gun online and fill out all the required paperwork. They’ll then ship the gun to a retailer in your state that allows transfer, where you can go and pick it up.
UPDATE — 7:00PM — TOM WARK posts a better explanation at the StopHR5034 facebook page: “Technically, the law David references (SB 118) left California as a “reciprocal” state for wine retailers, while making CA a “permit” state for wineries. This means unless you live in a state that has a reciprocal agreement with CA for allowing it’s retailers to ship into California and Vice Versa, then retailers can’t ship into CA. The only state that has such an agreement with CA is Missouri. That said, the CA ABC has stated that its current regulatory disposition is to not pursue enforcement of out of state retail shippers. Nevertheless, CA remains a state that primarily allows its own retailers to ship to Californians, while legally banning out of state retailers from doing the same.”
Thanks for the clarification, Tom!