Here’s an interesting opinion article from this month on these winery vs retailer DTC issues we have been discussing.
The single best line from the article, and probably the takeaway point for this whole problem, is:
For lawmakers what it comes down to is that they value the campaign contributions from local wholesalers who oppose retailer shipment more than they value the benefits to the state of the tax revenue they would reap from legal retailer shipments.
Just to clarify, this only applies to retailers ?
Winery shipments. Are not affected correct ?
Correct. Except to you.
That is correct. Wineries must have an Illinois Winery Shipper’s License, and Illinoisans can receive up to 12 cases per year per winery per person from any winery in the United States.
https://www.illinois.gov/ilcc/News/Pages/New-license-required-to-ship-wine-directly-to-consumers.aspx
Remember, it has always been illegal for retailers to ship wine to consumers in Illinois. Most simply didn’t care, and they did it anyway. Now that it is a felony crime punishable by jail time (upgraded from a misdemeanor with a fine), we will almost certainly see out-of-state retailers backing away.
I wonder how this will affect the 3 cases of 2015 Bordeaux futures I bought from B-21. I suppose I could always redirect my shipment to the FedEx Print and Ship in Racine WI if I need to.
Go f*ck yourself
A couple of the larger retail outfits in Illinois have healthy auction marketplaces (TCWC & HDH), so I’d imagine they have quite a bit of their overall revenue coming from out-of-state.
Retailers should be treated equally. If retailers can’t sell INTO the state, the retailers shouldn’t be able to sell OUT OF the state.
This could be an avenue of attack that brings the commerce clause into play overriding the amendment.
Yes, but I find Graholm to be a very difficult case and I have always wondered whether the court might be unwilling to extend the case beyond wineries as producers and consumers as purchasers. Literally, Granholm would prohibit a statute like the one in Illinois but the states are going to push that envelope as much as they can to see what they can get away with.
What state is that in? 
I wouldn’t be surprised if Binny’s and HDH sales totals are more than all out of state retailers. Our 800 number is so similar to Binny’s we average one call a week from people calling Binny’s.
I doubt HDH and TCWC buy much from Southern.
We have a history of this kind of stupidity in Illinois. When the Wine and Spirits Fair Dealing Act a/k/a the Wirtz law passed in 99, the crooked pols (and they are ALL crooked, just in varying degrees) told us it was for consumer protection too.
The Wine and Spirits Fair Dealing Act, also known as the Wirtz Law was an infamous Illinois state law passed in 1999 that > prevented distillers and wineries from changing distributors without “just cause”> .[1] Distributors stated that the law was required to prevent producers from severing ties with Illinois distributors and “outsourcing” their deals, ostensibly resulting in thousands of job losses throughout the state. After the law was passed, all Illinois distributors raised their prices.[1] The Federal Trade Commission actively lobbied against the law, to no avail.[2]
The unofficial “Wirtz Law” name comes from the fact that the law was passed after Judge and Dolph distributor owner Bill Wirtz and other distributors contributed over $700,000 to Illinois state legislators.> [1] Editorials at the time decried the law as a “corrupt document”.
The law, (and the related Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act which dated to 1982), resulted in a popular Michigan microbrewer, Bell’s Brewery, pulling their products from the Illinois market entirely in protest.[1] > Ultimately the unpopular law only remained on the books for three years before it was struck down by a U.S. District Court judge who said that it violated the commerce clause of the Constitution. > The law and its history went on to become a case study for campaign finance reform.[1]
We’ve heard of it in New York, but here we pronounce it Oh-Hi-Oh
Hey! The best Pomeranians (i.e., mine) come from Iowa.
I think Jay is right. The law was funded by a few organizations with a keen interest. It can only be challenged by people with as much interest and as much money.
Nobody is going to take that on pro-bono. Most of the public doesn’t know or care about it at all.
The commerce clause definitely trumps it. But even if one could get another state to prohibit shipping from Illinois retailers, it wouldn’t really matter because as someone mentioned, the retailers affected don’t match the clout of Southern. Crony capitalism?
What % of the Illinois residents ordered wine from out-of-state and had it shipped in before the new law? My guess is that it was a tiny percentage.
Bruce
Bootleggers and “bad actors” of e-commerce??? Umm, what???
You know. Those evil people who want to drink wines that aren’t carried by Breakthru or Southern. They must be arrested and reeducated.
I’m certainly an outlier, but I’d say that 90% of the wine I buy comes from out of state.
Beer drinkers and hell raisers too
I agree this is a terrible bill, even compared to what the wholesalers and distributors have bought here in Texas. I do wonder what the real effect of this bill is, though. If Joe, from Joe’s Wine Shop in Georgia, ships wine to a Illinois resident, I assume he commits a felony. Can IL extradite Joe ? Convict Joe in absentia ? Can IL cause any trouble for Joe in GA ? I seem to recall that similar laws could cause problems for wineries due to bonding requirements, but are retailers subject to the same sort of things ? I’m thinking the biggest real risk to Joe is that he can no longer change planes at ORD. What am I missing ?