The Department of Online Wine Policemen
In addition to being in the business of taking enormous amounts of venture capital, as well as selling wine on-line, Wine.com now has apparently set up a division within its company that I suspect is called: "The Department of Online Wine Policemen.
As was pointed out by Rich Cartiere at the Wine Market Report and made available HERE and by Alder at Vinography, Wine.com has begun ordering wine from out of state retailers and having it shipped to Wine.com in Washington State. They’ve then taken those shipments over to the Washington State Liquor Control Board and insisted that the state of Washington take action against these retailers. And they did just that. In fact, the Washington State Liquor Control Board’s actions, particularly in conjunction with other states, has forced a number of wine retailers to stop shipping to Washingtonians.
Many have suggested that this is a matter of "Tattletale" and actions on the part of Wine.com that are remarkably anti-consumer. In fact, if you want to see what folks have been saying just go read the comments at Alder’s blog or at the Wine Spectator bulletin boards or at Mark Squire’s bulletin board.
But here’s a little tidbit that hasn’t been brought up. The State of Washington has no jurisdiction when it comes to out-of-state retailers. Rather, the only people who are at risk when a consumer buys and has shipped to them wine from an out of state retailer is the consumers. It’s the consumer who is at risk for "importing untaxed liquor".
This explains why in all the letters that the Washington Liquor Control Board sent to out-of-state retailers at the behest of Wine.com’s Department of Online Wine Policemen "REQUESTED" that the retailers stop shipping, rather than demanding they stop shipping.
Now, it might be that Wine.com’s motivation for carrying out sting operations against its fellow retailers was its concern for public safety. It also might be that given Wine.com’s model of having residency in every state and not shipping over state lines had something to do with it’s aggressive move against its competitors. Who knows.
But here’s what I do know. As long as Wine.com is going operate a Department of Online Wine Policemen it really should turn its attention to consumers who are buying from out-of-state retailers rather than from Wine.com, who could ship the wine from within Washington.
Now, I don’t think the Wine.com Internet Wine Police Force is going to go after the only people, consumers, that the state of Washington can actually touch with enforcement actions. I don’t think they’ll do this because, well, that would be stupid. However, I honestly wish they would do this. If they did, there would be no need for Wine.com to worry further about the state of retailer-to-consumer shipping because there would be no more Wine.com. Consumers would get one inkling of the actions that Wine.com had taken and never patronize them again.
——————————–
Tom Wark is Executive Director of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association
however wine.com tries to justify its actions (I read all the responses on vinography) this sounds like entrapment to me.
Tom, your point is the only one that matters. How could Wine.com be so unaware of their own state’s laws, AND take an action that will punish individuals who are not only part of their potential customer base, but also part of their home base? Is the management of Wine.com being interviewed regarding this decision? Paul Gregutt, maybe? Please keep us updated!
Seems to me, wine.com may have made its decision based on the weak, mealy decision of the Supremes in 2005. Instead of coming down on free commercial traffic, the court made a narrow decision that reverberates just enough for the national wholesalers to screw around with the system.
Wine.com likely is trying to place itself on what it perceives as the winning side of the issue.
Let’s hope both it and the wholesalers are proved wrong, when we get a Supreme Court that actually practices what it preaches–that bullshit that Scalia puts forward as “originalism.” He, and others, seem to think that only they know what’s original thinking, but only when it coincides with their thinking.
Until the country’s politicians realized the money involved in taxing alcohol, the “originalist” founders didn’t seem to think we needed much regulation on wine, which went largely unregulated until after the Civil War.
Regulations accelerated after the repeal of prohibition, when the government learned how to extort tax money from the success of bootleggers. The answer to this problem lies at the Supreme Court and will remain a problem so long as idealogues run the justice system.
The internets are a plangent (like that word?) vehicle to let those who deserve it to take it back and deal with their less than elegant style. Wine.com deathwatch.
Sounds like wine.com has shot themselves in the foot. They have alienated themselves to many consumers in their home state and have had no effect on their competition but to bust their clients whom will be less than happy to patronize wine.com! They would have been better served to write the consumers informing them of their being a legal alternative.
Personally, I think we as bloggers should start a grass roots movement to revamp these archaic interstate wine shipping laws. We need a law to cover all, but the most dry states, and the revenue kicked down to each state in a uniform way. This would lower wine prices significantly as there would be so much less paper work necessary for wineries to administer a universal system.
It is silly that we, in home of the free, do not allow a man to sit, in his home, and have a glass of wine in front of the fire regardless of where he might live!
With this system states would end up with more revenue as wine shipping would go through the roof!
Sounds like wine.com has shot themselves in the foot. They have alienated themselves to many consumers in their home state and have had no effect on their competition but to bust their clients whom will be less than happy to patronize wine.com! They would have been better served to write the consumers informing them of their being a legal alternative.
Personally, I think we as bloggers should start a grass roots movement to revamp these archaic interstate wine shipping laws. We need a law to cover all, but the most dry states, and the revenue kicked down to each state in a uniform way. This would lower wine prices significantly as there would be so much less paper work necessary for wineries to administer a universal system.
It is silly that we, in home of the free, do not allow a man to sit, in his home, and have a glass of wine in front of the fire regardless of where he might live!
With this system states would end up with more revenue as wine shipping would go through the roof!
Sounds like wine.com has shot themselves in the foot. They have alienated themselves to many consumers in their home state and have had no effect on their competition but to bust their clients whom will be less than happy to patronize wine.com! They would have been better served to write the consumers informing them of their being a legal alternative.
Personally, I think we as bloggers should start a grass roots movement to revamp these archaic interstate wine shipping laws. We need a law to cover all, but the most dry states, and the revenue kicked down to each state in a uniform way. This would lower wine prices significantly as there would be so much less paper work necessary for wineries to administer a universal system.
It is silly that we, in home of the free, do not allow a man to sit, in his home, and have a glass of wine in front of the fire regardless of where he might live!
With this system states would end up with more revenue as wine shipping would go through the roof!
Sounds like wine.com has shot themselves in the foot. They have alienated themselves to many consumers in their home state and have had no effect on their competition but to bust their clients whom will be less than happy to patronize wine.com! They would have been better served to write the consumers informing them of their being a legal alternative.
Personally, I think we as bloggers should start a grass roots movement to revamp these archaic interstate wine shipping laws. We need a law to cover all, but the most dry states, and the revenue kicked down to each state in a uniform way. This would lower wine prices significantly as there would be so much less paper work necessary for wineries to administer a universal system.
It is silly that we, in home of the free, do not allow a man to sit, in his home, and have a glass of wine in front of the fire regardless of where he might live!
With this system states would end up with more revenue as wine shipping would go through the roof!
I smell a rat, here. Wine.com MUST be getting some under-the-table cash to take part in this sting operation. I have never used wine.com since I live in the Pennsylvania Soviet Socialist Republic, and I certainly never will.
The Washington State Liquor Control Board is out of control. They are without a doubt the most over officious entity I have ever experienced. We had to go to the legistlature to get help protecting our little mom and pop wine shop from the bullying and preditory nature of their agents. We were told that as soon as they get more laws inacted to regulate everyone better, things will be much clearer. Had we known the hostility of this beast toward micro business related to wine sales, we would have never opened in Washington State.
Is the following take on your article correct?
The only law actually broken by wine.com’s sting operation in Washington was the action of buying wines from an out-of-state retailer – by wine.com.
“The only law actually broken by wine.com’s sting operation in Washington was the action of buying wines from an out-of-state retailer – by wine.com.”
From my understanding, it is illegal in the state of washington for a wine or beer retailer to purchase wine or beer from a retailer. I think it is punishable by death to resell it. I wonder if Wine.com got a citation for that?
This is outrageous. The biggest online retailer in the wine industry is tattling on colleagues! How sad is that. This is a real humbdinger, an ethical firecracker.
THe Web is going to force the whole three-tier system to change, some way, some day. Perhaps this wine.com weirdness will accelerate the process, although there are so many lawyers and so much $$$ involved here that nothing can change fast.
I think the whole 3-tier, out-of-state shipping issue has lost juice in recent years. There is not enough hardship among consumers to merit much passion. It is a GREAT time to be a wine lover and drinker and shopper. There are more well-made wines available to more Americans than ever, at all sorts of price points. And you know what, we can even order the good stuff online. So what’s the problem?
On the other hand, the sheer soap-operatic quality of this wine.com stunt may have the goods to attract media attention that other aspects of the direct shipping could not. The broader arena media reaction to this should be interesting.
Hi Tom,
I’m sure you’re checking in on the ongoing discussion over at Vinography, but I thought you might particularly enjoy our “Sting Op 007” case that kicks over 10% of the proceeds to SWRA.
You know you’re in our hearts. Keep up the good work.