ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
Regulatory and Distribution Law Updates for the Alcohol Industry
ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
Regulatory and Distribution Law Updates for the Alcohol Industry
distilled spirits
Subscribe to distilled spirits's Posts

TTB Publishes Phase 2 of Labeling and Advertising Modernization Rule

by | Feb 22, 2022 | , , ,

On February 9, 2022, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) published a final rule that implements Phase 2 of its rulemaking modernizing certain labeling and advertising regulations for malt beverages and distilled spirits. This follows Phase 1, implemented on April 2, 2020, which undertook multiple liberalizing measures, including increasing the tolerance applicable to the alcohol content statements of distilled spirits labels, removing the prohibition against age statements on certain classes and types of distilled spirits, and removing outdated prohibitions on the term “strong.”

Phase 2 is focused on improving the clarity and usability of the regulations regarding labeling and advertising of malt beverages and distilled spirits products. Note that these changes do not require industry members to make changes to labels or advertisements but will allow industry members greater flexibility in labeling and advertising their products moving forward. This final rule is effective March 11, 2022. The below provides a selection of the key changes implemented as part of Phase 2 rulemaking:

  • “Brand label” to “single field of vision.” TTB will no longer require mandatory labeling information appear on the so-called “brand label.” Previously, labeling mandatories had to appear on the “brand label,” defined as the “principal display panel that is most likely to be displayed, presented, shown or examined under normal retail display conditions.” Under the revisions of Phase 2, TTB will allow mandatory information to appear anywhere on the label so long as it appears within the same field of vision—meaning a single side of the container (which for a cylindrical container is 40% of the circumference)—where all the pieces of information can be viewed simultaneously without the need to turn the container.
  • Wholesaler, retailer or consumer information on malt beverage labels. TTB will allow the addition of a label identifying the wholesaler, retailer or consumer to malt beverages, so long as the label does not reference the characteristics of the product, does not violate the labeling regulations and does not obscure any existing labels on the product.
  • “Disparaging” statement prohibitions revised. TTB will prohibit only false or misleading statements that explicitly or implicitly disparage a competitor’s product. TTB does not prohibit statements of opinion or non-misleading comparisons between products.
  • Revised guidance on use of flags and certain US symbols. TTB has removed the blanket ban on the use of flags and other symbols of the United States and Armed Forces. The regulations now reinforce TTB’s existing policy of prohibiting the use of these symbols only when they create a misleading impression that there was an endorsement by, or affiliation with, the governmental entity represented.
  • Adding a “distilled spirits specialty products” class. TTB is adding a “distilled spirits specialty product” class designation for distilled spirits that do not meet one of the other standards of identity. Distilled spirits specialty products must be designated in accordance with trade and consumer understanding, or, if no understanding exists, with distinctive or fanciful name (which may be the name of a cocktail) appearing in the same field of [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Second Prop 65 Amendment Effective April 1, 2021: New Warnings Required

by | Mar 26, 2021 | , ,

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65 (Prop 65), was enacted as a ballot initiative and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. The regulation prohibits knowing or intentional exposure of any individual to a “chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.” (See: 27 CCR § 25249.6.)

The state maintains and updates a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, with alcoholic beverages being added to the list April 29, 2011, and requiring suppliers to comply with Prop 65’s “clear and reasonable warning” mandate. (Click here for more information.) This includes, without limitation, beer, malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits. (See: 27 CCR § 25607.4(a).) Generally speaking, for alcoholic beverages, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer or its distributors to ensure proper compliance with Prop 65. (See: 27 CCR § 25600.2(a).) Further, any consequences for failure to comply with Prop 65 typically rests with the manufacturer or its distributor, provided that the retailer has not frustrated the manufacturer’s reasonable efforts to properly display the warning.

The warning provided must read: “WARNING Drinking distilled spirits, beer, coolers, wine and other alcoholic beverages may increase cancer risk, and, during pregnancy, can cause birth defects. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/alcohol.” (Id. at § 25607.4(a)(1)-(2).) To comply with Section 25607.3, among other specific requirements, the warning must be made at either point of sale (for off-premises consumption) or on a menu or list identifying the alcoholic beverages sold on-premises. (See: 27 CCR § 25607.4.) Note, however, that a supplier who is a party to a “court-ordered settlement or final judgment, establishing a warning method or content is deemed to be providing a “clear and reasonable” warning for that exposure if the warning complies with the order or judgment,” even if the requirements set forth in the order or judgment differ from the specific requirements set forth in the regulations. (See: 27 CCR § 25600(e).)

Prop 65 is enforced by the California attorney general, any district attorney or city attorney for cities whose population exceeds 750,000 and/or any private individual or group acting in the public interest. (See: 27 CCR § 25249.7.) Penalties for violating Prop 65 can be as high as $2,500 per day. (Id.) The fine is paid to the party that brought the litigation, including individuals or groups acting in the public interest, which creates a powerful incentive for private parties to enforce Prop 65. (Id.)

Prop 65 has undergone multiple amendments, two of which are in direct response to the ever-growing e-commerce market for alcoholic beverages. The first amendment, effective August 30, 2018, required the Prop 65 warning language be displayed on websites and on or in packages containing direct-to-consumer orders sent to California addresses. (Click here for [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Alcohol Excise Taxes 101

by | Jan 2, 2020 | ,

There are many laws at both the federal and state level that govern the production and distribution of distilled spirits. For example, craft distillers must comply with licensing and permitting requirements, trade practice laws, advertising restrictions, and, depending on the jurisdiction, alcohol franchise law. One of the most fundamental—and most complex—areas of law governing distilled spirits is excise taxes.

An article authored by McDermott’s Bethany K. Hatef in the Winter 2020 issue of Artisan Spirit Magazine provides a high-level overview of the federal alcohol excise tax system and some specific features that apply to distilled spirits, and also explains the current status of the Craft Beverage Modernization Act, the legislation temporarily providing for reduced tax rates for certain amounts of distilled spirits.

Access the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit Magazine: Winter 2020.



read more

TTB Label Approval System Survives First Amendment Challenge from DC Brewery

by | Aug 20, 2019 |

I. Factual Background

During the 34-day government shutdown occurring between December 2018 and January 2019, producers and importers of beer, wine and distilled spirits needing label approval to bring new products to market were forced to wait until the shutdown was resolved, when TTB could begin again to process COLA applications. The difficulties presented by this situation included the prospect of needing to destroy valuable, perishable inventory.

Unable to obtain a COLA due to the shutdown, Atlas Brew Works (Atlas) filed suit in January in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the COLA system. Atlas alleged that the requirement to obtain label approval violates the First Amendment, since, in the event of a government shutdown, the COLA requirement amounted to a prior restraint on protected speech. As the court explained in its opinion, Atlas’s argument boiled down to the claim that “a law that prohibits speech without regulatory approval becomes an outright ban on speech when the approval process is shuttered.” Shortly after the case was filed, the shutdown ended and Atlas received its COLA. The government asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was now moot. After giving the parties several months in which to brief the issue, the court ruled in favor of the government’s motion, finding Atlas’s case moot. (more…)



read more

TTB Spring 2019 Updates to Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda

by | May 28, 2019 | , , , ,

The spring edition of the federal government’s semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda) has been published. Like other federal agencies, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) uses the Regulatory Agenda to report on its current rulemaking projects.

The Regulatory Agenda provides glimpses into TTB’s policy focus and aspirations. But, readers should recognize that TTB rulemaking moves very slowly, and the Agency often does not meet the aspirational dates published in the Regulatory Agenda.  (more…)



read more

Distilling Lessons from Recent Trademark Cases

by and | Oct 2, 2018 |

Craft distillers know the value of a good trademark. The name of a particular spirit, a logo, or a label design can be vitally important to a brand’s identity (and a distiller’s bottom line).  They also know how complicated—and legally fraught—branding can be. For better or worse, trademark disputes involving alcohol beverage products are becoming increasingly common. The disputes that make it to court provide valuable insight that could prevent future legal headaches surrounding the selection, protection, and enforcement of alcohol beverage trademarks.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Fall 2018.



read more

TTB to Allow Proprietors to Request Alternating Premise Variances for Storage of Tax- and Non-Tax-Determined Commodities

by | Jun 6, 2018 | ,

On May 16, 2018, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued Industry Circular 2018-3, allowing proprietors of distilled spirits plants (DSPs), bonded wine cellars (BWCs) and breweries to submit a request for a variance to the typical method for storing tax-determined and non-tax-determined products. Under TTB regulations, a proprietor designates areas of the premises as bonded and non-bonded. With few exceptions, tax-determined products can only be stored on non-bonded areas of the premises and non-tax-determined products can only be stored in bonded areas.

Under Industry Circular 2018-3, proprietors may request a variance to the bonded/non-bonded designations established in existing regulations. This variance would allow an “alternation” of a specific area or multiple areas between a bonded and non-bonded designation. An “alternation” allows two practices (e.g., brewing and winemaking) statutorily prohibited from occurring at the same premise to occur through the creation of a legal fiction. The premise “alternates” between one type of premise to accomplish one task and reverts to another type of premise to accomplish another task. (more…)



read more

USDA Publishes Proposed GMO Labeling Regulations

by | May 14, 2018 | , ,

The Agricultural Marketing Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently published a proposed rule containing regulations to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard mandated by Congress in 2016. See 83 Fed. Reg. 19860 (May 4, 2018). The proposed regulations would govern the labeling of raw agricultural products and packaged foods whose labeling is governed the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act, including wines below 7 percent alcohol by volume and non-malt beer (e.g., “hard seltzers”). The proposed regulations would not directly apply to alcohol beverages whose labeling is governed by the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, including all distilled spirits, wines containing 7 percent alcohol by volume or greater, and beer containing malted barley and hops. Nevertheless, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau may look to the bioengineered food disclosure regulations as persuasive guidance in developing its own policies towards the disclosure of bioengineered ingredients (often called “genetically modified organisms” or “GMOs”). (more…)



read more

Additional Rum Cover Over for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands Approved in 2018 Budget Legislation

by | Feb 9, 2018 | , , , ,

Early this morning, both houses of Congress approved the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,” complex legislation that includes important modifications to an arcane law known as the “rum cover over,” which is an important revenue source for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (USVI).

The temporary excise tax relief provided to distillers in the 2017 federal tax reform law will not diminish the amount of federal excise tax revenue covered over to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and the USVI. The 2017 tax reform law included a two year reduction in the federal distilled spirits excise tax rate from $13.50 per proof gallon to $2.70 per proof gallon on the first 100,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits, and $13.34 per proof gallon on the next 22,130,000 proof gallons produced by each distillery or each controlled group of distilleries. The 2018 Budget Act treats all rum subject to the rum cover over as if it is subject to the full $13.50 per gallon excise tax rate. (more…)



read more

BLOG EDITOR

Alva C. Mather

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RankedInChambersUSA 2022