Court should nullify state’s ban on direct wine sales

Later this month, a federal judge will hear a case that could overturn Massachusetts’ laws effectively banning direct mail-order and Internet sales of wine to Bay State consumers. The suit, filed in 2006 by Family Winemakers of California, asserts laws regulating the importation of wine violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

We agree.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws in Michigan and New York that had either banned direct-mail wine sales altogether or made the rules so onerous that no winery could afford to compete with in-state producers. In 2006, Massachusetts responded with a law requiring that any out-of-state winery producing more 30,000 gallons — that is, most California wineries — use wholesalers to reach Massachusetts consumers. Alternatively, such wineries can opt to cut their relationships with wholesalers, wait six months, and then ship directly to consumers. 

That’s a de facto ban because, as the lawsuit notes, giving up an existing sales network to ship directly is not economically feasible, and wineries that opted to ship directly would risk running afoul of shipping limits to individuals.

While appearing to be fair, the intent of the Bay State rules is to protect wholesalers from competition — limiting consumer choice, inhibiting interstate commerce and depriving the state of revenue. The 35 states that do permit direct shipping have no difficulty enacting reasonable and legally defensible limits on total consumption, even as they collect license fees from out-of-state wineries happy to do business with them.

The Massachusetts Legislature is unlikely to budge on laws that protect powerful liquor industry interests. We urge the federal courts to sweep them away, putting wine sales here on a more competitive, consumer-friendly path.