Alcohol distributors know the scenario too well: a brand underperforms, the parties agree to unwind, and the supplier promises to “take care of” remaining inventory—until the calls stop, the warehouse fills up, and the storage invoices keep coming.

A recent New York Supreme Court decision, Labatt USA Operating Co., LLC v. Friends Beverage Group, LLC, squarely addresses that problem. The court awarded a national distributor more than $1.1 million after a supplier refused to retrieve unsold product following termination—while quietly monetizing the same inventory elsewhere. The opinion offers important guidance on distribution agreement terminations, unsold inventory obligations, storage costs,…
Continue Reading When Suppliers Walk Away from Inventory: What Alcohol Distributors Can Learn from Labatt USA v. Friends Beverage Group

The dicta that ate the doctrine

Watch modern alcohol-case briefing for five minutes and you’ll see the same incantation: the three-tier system counts as “unquestionably legitimate.” The phrase originated in North Dakota v. United States (plurality), where the Court described a comprehensive in-state distribution system as “unquestionably legitimate” in service of temperance, orderly markets, and revenue.

Then Granholm repeated the line while explaining that states may “funnel sales through the three-tier system,” again citing North Dakota.

Nothing controversial there—until litigants and courts started treating that adjective (“unquestionably”) like a constitutional forcefield. Over time, that snippet of approving language drifted…
Continue Reading “Unquestionably Legitimate” and Day v. Henry: Will the Supreme Court Finally Clarify Retailer Direct-to-Consumer Shipping After Tennessee Wine?

A Fedway-Based Critique of Conn. Fine Wine & Spirits v. Liquor Control Commission

The Connecticut Appellate Court’s recent decision in Conn. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Department of Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Commission should catch the attention of every beer, wine, and spirits wholesaler. By treating routine wholesaler shelf-stocking as a per se unlawful “inducement,” the court effectively endorsed a regulatory theory that collapses long-standing distinctions between coercion, influence, and ordinary commercial conduct.

For wholesalers, this is not an academic dispute. It goes directly to what your sales reps, merchandisers, and delivery personnel can do in the field, and…
Continue Reading Shelf-Stocking as an Illegal Inducement? What Connecticut’s Free-Labor Ruling Means for Alcohol Wholesalers After Loper Bright

States and municipalities keep acting like cannabis sits in some constitutional no-man’s-land where they can write any residency barrier they want and the Constitution somehow doesn’t count.

The Ninth Circuit just gave that instinct a major assist.

In Peridot Tree WA, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Control Board (consolidated with a Sacramento CORE licensing challenge), the Ninth Circuit held that the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) does not apply to state/local cannabis dispensary residency requirements because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

That’s a direct split with the First and Second Circuits, which have treated cannabis…
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Says the Dormant Commerce Clause Doesn’t Apply to Cannabis Licenses — Even Though Raich Said Marijuana Is Interstate Commerce (Enough to Criminalize)

States and municipalities keep acting like cannabis sits in some constitutional no-man’s-land where they can write any advertising restriction they can dream up and the First Amendment somehow doesn’t count.

We’ve seen this movie before. In Cocroft v. Graham a 5th Circuit decision out of the Northern District of Mississippi and in the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. State, courts treated the Controlled Substances Act and the Supremacy Clause as if they erased state-law legality for purposes of commercial speech. The result was a cramped version of Central Hudson where the “lawful activity”…
Continue Reading Can a City Take Cannabis Revenue and Still Ban Cannabis Billboards? The First Amendment Just Said No.

On October 1, 2025, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) released its updated shutdown plan in the event of a lapse in federal appropriations; here is a link – Treasury_TTB_Lapse_Plan.

The plan makes clear that almost all of TTB’s core business functions will halt if Congress fails to pass a budget. Out of 459 employees, 398 would be furloughed, with only 61 retained to handle limited “excepted” activities—mostly tied to tax collection and protecting government property.

What Continues

• Processing of excise tax returns that include remittances
• Minimal computer operations to prevent data loss
• Protection of statute

…
Continue Reading TTB Publishes Shutdown Plan: What It Means for the Beverage Industry

A federal court in New York delivered a major win for beverage producers facing insurance disputes over barrel storage. In Vale Fox Distillery LLC v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., Judge Cathy Seibel held that a distillery’s insurance policy provided coverage when racks of aging whiskey collapsed, destroying more than $2.5 million worth of product.

The Whiskey Barrel Collapse at Vale Fox

Vale Fox Distillery, based in Poughkeepsie, invested years in its single malt program. In December 2023, racks holding sixty barrels gave way, sending whiskey crashing to the floor and damaging interior walls. Fifty-two barrels burst, erasing years of…
Continue Reading NY Distillery Wins Key Insurance Ruling on Barrel Collapse Coverage; Time to Check Your Coverage for This Issue

September marks the anniversary of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Miller v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., decided on September 6, 1979. That ruling, together with the earlier Miller v. Heileman decision from 1977, locked in the principle that no brewer owns “light” or “lite.” These cases preserved industry-wide freedom to describe beer in plain English and clarified doctrines that still shape trademark law today.

We wanted to revisit them now—as we pass Schlitz’s anniversary—as a reminder of why every brewer can call a beer “light” or “lite” without fear of trademark exclusivity, and why these opinions remain touchstones in…
Continue Reading Lite vs Light in Beer: Why Two 7th Circuit Cases Keep the Terms Fair Game