Wine Without Borders

Ignorant or Misleading?

February 22, 2008 – 12:11 pm

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport that the state of Maine may not required a common carrier (FedEX, UPS, etc) to obtain a signature from someone to whom cigarettes are being delivered. The court reasoned that such a state requirement ran afoul of the federal government’s responsibility, not the states, for regulating interstate commerce.

The question has been raised, does this ruling mean that a state may not require a signature for wine deliveries?

The answer is NO and here’s why:

In the various direct shipping permit regulations and laws that exist across the country, the requirement to have to get a signature before the delivery of wine is placed on the winery or retailer who sold the wine, not on the common carrier, as was the case with the Maine law. Retailers and wineries contract with the common carrier to obtain the signature.

Here’s the bottom line: The Supreme Court, properly, made no comment on whether a private company can contract with private company to obtain a signature at the door step.

The above is the rational explanation of this recent Supreme Court decision. Below is the irrational, fear mongering explanation of the decision:

What we have as a result of this decision is basically the Wild West with regard to direct shipping, because every law out there with this particular age check component is now rendered unenforceable. The sellers of these products are not being held responsible, and now the courts have said the carriers cannot be held responsible either.  So how exactly are states going to ensure that alcohol shipped direct does not wind up in the hands of minors?  This opinion calls the practice of direct shipping into question entirely, because it creates an environment lacking any kind of control and accountability.”
Craig Wolf, Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Association

You might want to give the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Association a pass for such a comment assuming that they are simply ignorant. But assuming they are not ignorant about the actually meaning of this case, then you have to ask yourself why they want to deliberately mislead alcohol regulators, lawmakers and consumers?

This would not be the first time the WSWA has misled due to either ignorance or purposefulness. It’s probably best to recognize that when a deceptive argument like this is made it is done so simply because no rational argument is available.