Category: Food & Hospitality

Implications of the Use of the Defense Production Act in the U.S. Supply Chain

What owners, operators and investors need to know before accepting funds under the DPA

There has been an expansion of regulations related to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in both the United States and abroad. Current economic and geopolitical tensions are driving further expansion of FDI in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Whether by intent or coincidence, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) regulations that took effect February 13, 2020, included provisions that expanded the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) and FIRRMA based upon the invocation of the Defense Production Act (DPA) – such as with President Biden’s recent Executive Order evoking the DPA to help alleviate the U.S. shortage of baby formula.

As background, the U.S. regulation of foreign investment in the U.S. began in 1975 with the creation of CFIUS. The 2007 Foreign Investment and National Security Act refined CFIUS and broadened the definition of national security. Historically, CFIUS was limited to technology, industries and infrastructure directly involving national security. It was also a voluntary filing. Foreign investors began structuring investments to avoid national security reviews. As a result, FIRRMA, a CFIUS reform act, was signed into law in August 2018. FIRRMA’s regulations took effect in February 2020.

It is not surprising that there are national security implications to U.S. food production and supply, particularly based upon various shortages in the near past and projections of further shortages in the future. What is surprising is that the 2020 FIRRMA regulations provided for the application of CFIUS to food production (and medical supplies) based upon Executive Orders that bring such under the DPA.

The Impact of Presidential DPA Executive Orders

The 2020 FIRMMA regulations included an exhaustive list of “critical infrastructure” that fall within CFIUS’s jurisdiction. Appendix A to the regulations details “Covered Investment Critical Infrastructure and Functions Related to Covered Investment Critical Infrastructure” and includes the following language:

“manufacture any industrial resource other than commercially available off-the-shelf items …. or operate any industrial resource that is a facility, in each case, that has been funded, in whole or in part, by […] (a) Defense Production Act of 1950 Title III program …..”

Title III of the DPA “allows the President to provide economic incentives to secure domestic industrial capabilities essential to meet national defense and homeland security requirements.” This was arguably invoked by President Trump’s COVID-19 related DPA Executive Orders regarding medical supplies (such as PPEs, tests and ventilators, etc.) and now President Biden’s Executive Order related to baby formula (and other food production).

Based on the intent of FIRRMA to close gaps in prior CFIUS coverage, the FIRRMA definition of “covered transactions” includes the following language:

“(d) Any other transaction, transfer, agreement, or arrangement, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of section 721.”

Taken together, the foregoing provision potentially gives CFIUS jurisdiction to review non-U.S. investments in U.S. companies covered by DPA Executive Orders that are outside of traditional M&A structures. This means that even non-controlling foreign investments in U.S. companies (such as food or medical producers) who receive DPA funding are subject to CFIUS review. More significantly, such U.S. companies can be subject to CFIUS review for a period of 60 months following the receipt of any DPA funding.

As a result of DPA-related FDI implications, owners, operators, and investors should carefully assess the implications of accepting funding under the DPA and the resulting restrictions on non-U.S. investors in businesses and industries not historically within the jurisdiction of CFIUS.

Article By David Vance Lucas of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more administrative and regulatory legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

The Metaverse: A Legal Primer for the Hospitality Industry

The metaverse, regarded by many as the next frontier in digital commerce, does not, on its surface, appear to offer many benefits to an industry with a core mission of providing a physical space for guests to use and occupy. However, there are many opportunities that the metaverse may offer to owners, operators, licensors, managers, and other participants in the hospitality industry that should not be ignored.

What is the Metaverse?

The metaverse is a term used to describe a digital space that allows social interactions, frequently through use of a digital avatar by the user. Built largely using decentralized, blockchain technology instead of centralized servers, the metaverse consists of immersive, three-dimensional experiences, persistent and traceable digital assets, and a strong social component. The metaverse is still in its infancy, so many of the uses for the metaverse remain aspirational; however, metaverse platforms have already seen a great deal of activity and commerce. Meanwhile, technology companies are working to produce the next-generation consumer electronics that they hope will make the metaverse a more common location for commerce.

The Business Case for the Hospitality Industry

The hospitality industry may find the metaverse useful in enhancing marketing and guest experiences.

Immersive virtual tours of hotel properties and the surrounding area may allow potential customers to explore all aspects of the property and its surroundings before booking. Operators may also add additional booking options or promotions within the virtual tour to increase exposure to customers.

Creating hybrid, in-person and remote events, such as conferences, weddings, or other celebrations, is also possible through the metaverse. This would allow guests on-site to interact with those who are not physically present at the property for an integrated experience and possible additional revenue streams.

Significantly, numerous outlets have identified the metaverse as one of the top emerging trends in technology. As its popularity grows, the metaverse will become an important location for the hospitality industry to interact with and market to its customer base.

Legal Issues to Consider

  1. Select the right platform for you. There are multiple metaverse platforms, and they all have tradeoffs. Some, including Roblox and Fortnite, offer access to more consumers but generally give businesses less control over content within the programs. Others, such as Decentraland and the Sandbox, provide businesses with greater control but smaller audiences and higher barriers to entry. Each business should consider who its target audience is, what platform will be best to reach that audience, and its long term metaverse strategy before committing to a particular platform.
  2. Register your IP. Businesses should consider filing trademark applications covering core metaverse goods or services and securing any available blockchain domains, which can be used to facilitate metaverse payments and to direct users to blockchain content, such as websites and decentralized applications. Given the accelerating adoption of blockchain domains along with limited dispute resolution recourse available, we strongly encourage businesses to consider securing intellectual property rights now.
  3. Establish a dedicated legal entity. Businesses may want to consider setting up a new subsidiary or affiliate to hold digital assets, shield other parts of their business from metaverse-related liability, and isolate the potential tax consequences.
  4. Take custody of digital assets. Because of their digital character, digital assets such as cryptocurrency, which may be the primary method of payment in the metaverse, are uniquely vulnerable to loss and theft. Before acquiring cryptocurrency, businesses will need to set up a secure blockchain wallet and adopt appropriate access and security controls.
  5. Protect and enforce your IP. The decentralized nature of the metaverse poses a significant challenge to businesses and intellectual property owners. Avenues for enforcing intellectual property rights in the metaverse are constantly evolving and may require multiple tools to stop third-party infringements.
  6. Reserve metaverse rights. Each Business that licenses its IP, particularly those that do so on a geographic or territorial basis, should review existing license agreements to determine what rights, if any, its licensees have for metaverse-related uses. Moving forward, each brand owner is encouraged to expressly reserve rights for metaverse-related uses and exercise caution before authorizing any third party to deploy IP to the metaverse on a business’ behalf.
  7. Tax matters. Attention needs to be paid to how the tax law applies to metaverse transactions, despite the current tax law not fully addressing the metaverse. This is particularly the case for state and local sales and use, communications, and hotel taxes.

Ready to Enter?

As we move into the future, the metaverse appears poised to provide a tremendous opportunity for the hospitality industry to connect directly with consumers in an interactive way that was until recently considered science fiction. But like every new frontier, technological or otherwise, there are legal and regulatory hurdles to consider and overcome.

Article By Charles B. Ferguson, Jr. and Kimberly A. Wachen of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more technology legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 ArentFox Schiff LLP

House Bill To Give FDA More Funding to Address Formula Shortage

  • On May 17, House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced H.R. 7790, a supplemental appropriations bill to provide $28 million in emergency funding to address the shortage of infant formula in the US for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022. The bill is intended to provide the FDA with needed resources to address the shortage, prevent fraudulent products from being sold, acquire better data on the infant formula marketplace, and to help prevent a future recurrence.

  • Representative DeLauro stated that FDA does not currently have an adequate inspection force to inspect more plants if it approves additional applications to sell formula in the US. Thus, the supplemental appropriations are intended for “salaries and expenses.”

  • Relatedly, the House Appropriations Committee will hold two hearings this week to examine the recent recall of infant formula, the FDA’s handling of the recall, and the nationwide infant formula shortage.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Are You Ready for the UK Plastic Packaging Tax?

The plastic packaging tax (the ‘Tax’) came into force on 1 April 2022, with UK businesses that produce or import plastic packaging components in quantities of 10 or more tonnes per year affected. However, despite already being in force, research conducted by YouGov, on behalf of Veolia, has found that a high proportion of retail and manufacturing businesses (77% of those surveyed) are still not aware of the Tax.

As businesses gain increased awareness, the Tax is likely to receive a mixed reception. Whilst most would support the Government’s aim of increasing the use of recycled content in plastic packaging components, the Tax comes at a time when 92% of manufacturers and 90% of importers are reporting increased costs. With the introduction of the Tax, those businesses that have not already passed these increased costs on to customers will likely do so, meaning that the Tax may unintentionally add to the cost of living in the UK. This is compounded when one considers that the Tax came into force just five days before the controversial increase in national insurance contributions.

To manage increased costs and to ensure compliance with the law, businesses should pay close attention to the rules of the Tax.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on international laws, visit the NLR Global section.

Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification in Big Tuna Antitrust Case

Court delivers a necessary course correction in the law of class certification.

There was reason for optimism in August 2021, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc of a 2-1 decision that would have made it more difficult for antitrust claimants to secure class certification. The three-judge panel in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) had determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) required a district court to find that no more than a de minimis number of class members are uninjured before a class may be certified. Having announced this de minimis rule in its opinion, the court then took the unusual step of inviting the parties to argue whether the full court should rehear the issue en banc.

As we wrote last year when en banc rehearing was granted, with its de minimis rule, “the panel really jumped the median strip.” We argued that the rule conflated the question of whether issues common to the class predominate over issues unique to individual class members with the question of how the class is defined and that the Ninth Circuit’s new and unrealistic de minimis requirement erected an unnecessary procedural hurdle to class certification. Other commentators and amici argued that requiring proof that all but a de minimis number of class members are injured requires a determination on the merits, impermissible at the class certification stage.

In welcome news for claimants and attorneys who bring antitrust class actions, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc decided against the de minimis rule, for all of the foregoing reasons, in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9455 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).

In a thorough review of the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, the Ninth Circuit held that the movant’s burden is to prove the prerequisites of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence, bringing the Ninth Circuit in line with the law in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits. As for the predominance requirement of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the court cited In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir. 2008) as amended (Jan. 16, 2009), to hold that, when assessing whether a plaintiff has proven that a common question related to a central issue in the claim predominates, a district court is limited to resolving whether the evidence establishes that a common question is capable of class-wide resolution, not whether the evidence in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial.”

In rejecting the de minimis rule, the court began with the notion that class-wide proof is not required for all issues. Thus, the need for individualized assessment of a class member’s damages does not preclude a court from certifying a class. It contradicts this notion to require proof of injury of not more than a de minimis number of class members.

The presence of uninjured class members, the court held, does not defeat predominance. Predominance is defeated only where the class members cannot rely on the same body of common evidence to establish the common issue.

The presence of a large number of uninjured class members, however, could require a district court to consider whether the class definition is “fatally overbroad.” The remedy in that case, the court said, is to “redefine the overbroad class to include only those members who can rely on the same body of common evidence to establish the common issue.” “[T]he problem of a potentially ‘over-inclusive’ class,” the court said, “can and often should be solved by refining the class definition rather than by flatly denying class certification on that basis” (citation and internal quotation omitted).

With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the three-judge panel and affirmed the certification of the classes by U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino of California’s Southern District*, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the methodology employed—statistical regression analysis and other expert evidence—”was capable of showing that a price-fixing conspiracy caused class-wide antitrust impact.”  [*Judge Sammartino subsequently recused herself and the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Dana Sabraw.]

The 9-2 decision was written by Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee said as much as a third of the class members were unharmed. This is a “victory to plaintiffs” who will now be able to settle the action without having to prove their case trial, he said.

The suit was brought by direct purchasers of tuna products, indirect purchasers of bulk-sized tuna products, and individual end purchasers against the owners of Bumble Bee Foods LLC (currently in Chapter 11), StarKist Co., and Chicken of the Sea—which sell more than 80 percent of the packaged tuna in the United States. The industry has also been investigated by the Department of Justice in recent years, resulting in criminal guilty pleas by industry executives for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy.

Nothing in Rule 23 suggests that the presence of more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members affects whether questions affecting only individual class members predominate.

The now vacated de minimis rule conflates impact with damages and the predominance inquiry with potential overbreadth in the class definition. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision is a model of clear thinking and a welcome course correction in the law of class certification.

Article By Dan Mogin and Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© MoginRubin LLP

Sugar Association Files Supplemental Petition Urging Regulatory Changes for Artificially Sweetened Foods

  • This week the Sugar Association submitted a Supplemental petition (“Supplement”) to FDA to further support the Association’s June 2020 petition Misleading Labeling Sweeteners and Request for Enforcement Action (“Petition”).  As noted in a previous post, the Association’s petition asks FDA to promulgate regulations requiring additional labeling disclosures for artificially sweetened products, which it believes are necessary to avoid consumer deception. Other than acknowledging accepting the petition for filing on Nov. 30, 2020, (see Regulations.gov), the agency has not responded.
  • The Supplement provides new data and information that the Association believes supports its original Petition, alleging that misleading labeling is “getting more prolific in the absence of FDA action.”  According to the Association, the number of new food product launches containing non-sugar sweeteners has increased by 832% since 2000, with 300% growth in just the last five years.  To further support its position, the Association references consumer research that it commissioned, suggesting that consumers think it is important to know if their foods contain sugar alternatives.
  • The Association is urging FDA to mandate significant additional disclosures on labels of artificially sweetened food products, including the following requirements to —
    • Clearly identify the presence of alternative sweeteners in the ingredient list;
    • Indicate the type and quantity of alternative sweeteners, in milligrams per serving, on the front of package of food and beverage products consumed by children;
    • Disclose the sweetener used on the front of package for products making a sugar content claim, such as “Sweetened with [name of Sweetener(s)]” beneath the claim;
    • Disclose gastrointestinal effects of various sweeteners at minimum thresholds of  effect;
    • Require that no/low/reduced sugars claims be accompanied by the disclosure “not lower in calories” unless such products have 25% fewer calories than the comparison food.

Article By The Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Agriculture Groups Sue FDA on Chlorpyrifos Ban

  • As previously reported, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on August 30, 2021 that revoked all tolerances for the pesticide chemical chlorpyrifos on raw agricultural commodities; the rulemaking was driven by toxicity concerns, primarily concerning exposure in children. The tolerances are set to expire on February 28, 2022, effectively banning the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops. In light of the expiration, FDA published a guidance document to assist food producers and processors that handle foods which may contain chlorpyrifos restudies.
  • In October of 2021, agriculture stakeholders submitted formal written objections and a request to stay the tolerance revocations to EPA. More than 80 stakeholders signed the document, arguing that significant harms would result from banning chlorpyrifos and urging the agency to stay implementation of the rule until objections were formally addressed by EPA.
  • Agriculture stakeholder groups are now seeking a court injunction against EPA’s ban on chlorpyrifos. On February 10, 2022, agricultural trade groups representing thousands of members filed a lawsuit against EPA before the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the agency ignored its own scientific findings regarding 11 high-benefit and low-risk crop uses for chlorpyrifos and that the revocation will cause irreparable damage. It remains to be seen how EPA will respond to the lawsuit.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Restaurant Businesses Entitled to Favorable Employee Retention Credit Treatment

Restaurant businesses have a new opportunity to take advantage of the employee retention tax credit under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, even though Congress terminated the credit Sept. 30, 2021, three months earlier than scheduled. Certain restaurant businesses that thought they were ineligible for this tax credit may be entitled to take advantage of it for wages paid up until this COVID-19 economic incentive ended. Such potential opportunity is a result of IRS guidance that was published in August 2021, the month before the credit ended.

The employee retention credit initially allowed a 50% credit for wages paid for the second through fourth quarters of 2020, and then a 70% credit for wages paid for the first through third quarters of 2021, if the business either had its operations suspended due to COVID-19-related government orders or had a significant decline in gross receipts. Wages paid with a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program were not eligible for the credit. The credit was limited to a maximum of $5,000 per employee for 2020, but this cap was increased to $7,000 per employee per quarter for the first through third quarters of 2021 (total maximum credit of $21,000 per employee for 2021). The credit is applied against the employer’s share of payroll taxes, and to the extent the credit exceeded the employer’s share of payroll taxes, the IRS refunds the difference to the employer.

Impact of PPP Loans and Restaurant Revitalization Grants on Gross Receipts

For 2020, a business satisfied the significant decline in gross receipts requirement for credit eligibility if it experienced a greater than 50% reduction in gross receipts compared to the same quarter in 2019. This test was eased for 2021 quarters to include reductions in gross receipts greater than 20%. When the IRS published its initial guidance, it said gross receipts included tax-exempt income. The assumption was that a PPP loan forgiven or a grant under the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), both treated as tax-exempt revenue, would nevertheless be treated as gross receipts for determining whether a restaurant business had a significant decline in gross receipts for credit eligibility. Therefore, it would have been understandable if a restaurant owner who had a PPP loan forgiven or received an RRF grant assumed that the amount of the forgiven loan or grant needed to be included in the restaurant’s gross receipts calculation, which may have resulted in not satisfying the decline in gross receipts test. However, the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2021-33 in August 2021, which provides that for purposes of determining whether a business has had a significant decline in gross receipts for a quarter, the business may exclude forgiven PPP loans and RRF grants from its gross receipts. This will increase the likelihood that a restaurant business can pass the decline in gross receipts test to allow the business to claim the credit. Even though this credit ended in September 2021, a company can still claim the credit for prior quarters by filing an amended payroll tax return.

Part-Time Employees

Another important factor in claiming the credit deals with the number of average full-time employees a company had in 2019. The critical thresholds to qualify as a “Small Employer” are 100 or fewer average full-time employees in 2019 for determining the credit for 2020 quarters, and 500 or fewer average full-time employees for 2021 quarters. If the conditions to claim the credit are satisfied – either because business operations were suspended by a government order or the company had a decline in gross receipts – a Small Employer gets the credit for wages paid even though the business is open and the employees are working. On the other hand, larger businesses that surpassed these 100- or 500-employee thresholds could take the credit only if it paid its employees even though they were not working. Note that these 100/500 employee thresholds are determined on a company-wide basis, not on a per-location basis that tested eligibility for PPP loan rules.

In August 2021, the IRS published Notice 2021-49, which states full-time equivalents in 2019 are not counted in determining this 100/500 employee threshold. Some restaurant businesses may have thought they were not eligible to claim the credit because their part-time workers, when aggregated into full-time equivalents, caused the businesses to exceed the 100/500 average full-time employee threshold. However, as a result of this IRS notice, they now may be eligible to file an amended quarterly payroll tax returns to claim the credit.

Better yet, Notice 2021-49 states that wages paid to part-time employees are eligible for the credit – even though part-time employees are not counted toward the 100/500 employee threshold. Some restaurant businesses may have assumed the wages paid to part-time workers were not eligible for the credit, and may be able to file amended payroll tax returns to claim the credit for part-time worker wages.

Cash Tips

Finally, Notice 2021-49 also states that an employee’s cash tips of more than $20 per month are wages eligible for the credit. Some restaurant businesses may have assumed that tips paid by customers were not eligible for the credit, and did not include tips in their claim for the credit. If so, they could file amended payroll tax returns to claim the credit. Of course, to claim the credit for cash tips received by employees, a restaurant business must report the tips as income on the employee’s Form W-2.

In summary, restaurant businesses should revisit their employee retention credit analysis with their legal and tax advisors in light of Notice 2021-49. The benefits could be substantial.

This article was written by Riley Lagesen, Landes Taylor and Marvin Kirsner of Greenberg Traurig law firm. For more articles about employee retention credits, please click here.

Feeling Thirsty? Wall Street, Industry Giants Stir Renewed Interest in the CBD-Beverage Market

For several years, industry giants such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Anheuser-Busch have made waves announcing future plans to explore the CBD-beverage market. And last week, Nasdaq published an article on the future of investment opportunities in cannabis-infused drinks. Perhaps most notable from the article was Nasdaq’s expected valuation for the CBD beverage market — a staggering $1.4 billion by 2023.

While it is true that certain investors are seeing green in the CBD-beverage market, the space is still plagued by a landmine of legal uncertainty and questions. Hemp-derived CBD was legalized at the federal level by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill. However, as we previously discussed, the FDA and FTC have overlapping enforcement authority over the marketing of CBD products, which can include anything from food products to dietary supplements to beverages with CBD added. And as recently as November 16, 2021, the FDA reiterated that its approach to regulating the CBD industry will be same as it has been  — a regulatory minefield. The acting Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research recently emphasized the agency’s position that it needs additional CBD research and safety data before it will consider CBD for uses beyond prescription drugs, including usage as a food or beverage additive or dietary supplement.

Companies marketing CBD beverages should take careful steps to ensure compliance with the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance regarding CBD products. Unless and until the FDA provides further guidance, we can expect the back-and-forth game to continue with CBD companies entering the beverage space and the FDA initiating periodic enforcement actions. At a minimum, CBD companies entering the beverage space should refrain from making health claims, such as a product “can prevent, treat, or cure” a disease, as these claims are ripe for FDA enforcement actions. We provided several marketing dos and don’ts in a previous blog post that apply with equal force to the CBD beverage industry.

With industry experts claiming that the “best way to consume cannabinoids is through a beverage,” and Nasdaq reporting on the investment opportunities that surround CBD beverages, it is no surprise that CBD beverages are exploding in popularity.

This article was written by Rachel Sodee and Richard Swor of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings law firm. For more articles about CBD products, please click here.

Legal Considerations for Ready-to-Drink Cocktails

The ready-to-drink cocktail or “RTD” category has exploded in recent years, and it’s occupied by more than merely craft distillers familiar with a carefully made cocktail. Brewers, distillers and even vintners have joined in, capitalizing on consumers’ desires for pre-made, no-fuss beverages. The most unexpected development to emerge with RTDs, however, is the legal complexity surrounding these products—something the industry is only beginning to understand.

Many of these legal issues stem from the fact that the legal regulatory landscape in most states has not caught up with the rapidly evolving alcohol industry. That leaves ready-to-drink cocktails, much like hard seltzers, as not having a specific class or type in certain states. Suppliers looking to enter the space have plentiful options when creating a new product, subject to what licenses the manufacturer holds and what those licenses allow them to produce.

Ready-to-drink cocktails can be spirits, malt, sugar, cider or wine-based. The base of the RTD product, nonetheless, is the key federal factor. It is also an important factor in most states when determining how the product will be treated from a legal perspective in the following areas:

  • Licensing needed to manufacture, distribute and sell the product;
  • Applicable franchise law (Do beer franchise laws apply to low-proof spirits?);
  • Available channels of distribution (Can you sell this product in grocery or convenience store?);
  • Excise tax rate charged to the manufacturer (Does state law have a lower excise tax rate for low ABV products?);
  • Labeling and advertising considerations (Is your product a modified traditional product?); and
  • Trade practice considerations/promotions (Do spirits laws apply?).

Industry members dabbling in a sphere that is relatively new to the market, state regulators and legislatures should be mindful of the patchwork of emerging regulations. Like hard seltzer, ready-to-drink cocktails are not a clearly defined category under existing alcohol law. Meanwhile, states are working quickly to legislate in this domain. New Jersey is considering a reduced alcoholic beverage tax rate on low-ABV liquors to align with the beer tax rate (NJ SB 701), Vermont is considering legislation to define “low alcohol spirits beverage” and treat it as a “vinous beverage” (VT HB 590) and the Washington State Senate has a bill pending that would establish a tax on low-proof beverages (WA SB 5049).

From franchise issues to excise tax, the issues discussed here are only a glimpse of the nuanced and complicated legal landscape that governs the distribution of RTDs and alcoholic beverages across all categories.

Article By Nichole D. Shustack and Isabelle R. Cunningham of McDermott Will & Emery

For more food and beverage legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery