Direct wine shipments in MA now legal
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states cannot discriminate between in-state and out-of-state purveyors when regulating direct shipment of wine to consumers. What this means for us in the Bay State is that our legislators can no longer prevent us from buying wine online from out-of-state sellers.
Naturally, this is good news — for now. Many of our legislators and other critics of the ruling profess a desire to protect our children by prohibiting direct shipment of alcohol: “direct wine sales will open the floodgates to minors obtaining wine over the Internet.” Utter nonsense. A minor would have to be pretty enterprising to both unlawfully acquire a credit card, make an online purchase, and receive the delivery at home without a parent noticing. Even were such an occurrence commonplace, as the critics insist it is, there’s a simple solution which wouldn’t penalize those of us who would legally and responsibly buy spirits online: require shippers to obtain a signature from someone who is over 21 years of age. Both UPS and FedEx offer adult signature options, and other shippers would doubtless add the service after such legislation was enacted.
The real issue at stake for our local governments, though, is tax revenue. They simply can’t tax wine sales as effectively (or at all) if you buy it out-of-state. Sure, Massachusetts has a “use tax” that is theoretically assessed on all out-of-state purchases to be used in-state, but have you ever paid your share of use tax?
So, enjoy your wine cautiously — but get ready to write your representatives should the need arise.
Let’s not get too excited about this ruling yet. Marc can correct me if I’m wrong (since he wrote a law article about this), but my understanding is as follows:
The Supreme Court struck down state laws that discriminate against out of state win producers. States can then respond in one of two ways - both would be legal based on the court’s decision. The first approach is that states can remove the barriers to out of state wine mail orders. The other approach would be to prohibit ALL mail orders - both from in and out of state. It’s not clear to me which path Massachusetts (or New Jersey for that matter) will take. Let’s hope for option A.
Howard is correct in his take on the two paths now available to states. I am not familiar with MA’s approach on this issue, but for those of us in NJ, this decision will likely make little impact in the near term (See the article in the Bergen Record). In fact, NJ passed its complete ban in response to a lawsuit, much like those that led this issue to the Court.
The picture is brighter for those living in NY, where Gov. Pataki has been receptive to the idea of opening up direct shipment for some time now. There is reason to be somewhat optimistic, even in states like NJ, because increased pressure may encourage legislators to rethink their approach. I completely agree with Jabbett that the protection of minors argument is so weak as to be essentially irrelevant. The states that have previously allowed direct shipping have not experienced a plague of underage drinking resulting from direct shipping. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Kennedy similarly dismissed this argument.
Those interested in reading my article, which, if nothing else, includes a fairly comprehensive history of the issue, should feel free to download the PDF.
What’s the deal? don’t we export other goods and what if others stop buying goods from us? Come on! don’t be childish.
I work at a small winery in California and was sent a copy of this BLOG as evidence we could ship into MA. NOT TRUE. UPS will NOT accept shipments and will probably confiscate any that try. The Wine Institute still lists MA as a “Do Not Ship” state. The US Supreme Court decision has had litle effect except to cause Florida and Texas to change their laws so we cannot ship there anymore and still be profitable. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news - this battle is far from over.