Warning: This Entry May Make You Angry
The recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the important wine-related case of Costco v. Hoen is a disappointment to many in the industry who believe that that the state violates the law when it promotes anti-competitive regulations that hurt the consumer and benefit a small group.
Yet this issue is a very difficult one to wrap your arms around. It’s very complex and deals with an area of the law (Anti-Trust Issues) that few people are familiar enough with to understand the implications of the decision at hand.
I’ve been looking for a layman’s explanation of what happened in the 9th Circuit since the decision came down. I found one
Over at VINO FICTIONS, Thomas explains the case in plain and simple words in a post he entitles:
It is well worth a read. But I have to second his warning early on in the post: "WARNING: THIS BLOG ENTRY MAY MAKE YOU ANGRY"
Boy, you weren’t kidding – this did make me mad.
By the way, I was sitting in an airport today listening to my iPod. I had downloaded the WineBiz Radio podcast from a little while back. And there you were – a nice performance!
I think this story proves something that Americans don’t realize: that states specifically set up their alcohol rules to promote Prohibition–and to rake in revenue from those who would not heed their warning. It’s monumental hypocrisy at its most glaring, and the WSWA is an instrument of that hypocrisy.
At least during the real Prohibition, gangsters didn’t try to tell us that they were nice guys.
The Liquor Control Board’s enforcement tactics are real special also. After this current ruling and their revalidation of perceived purpose, I’m going to be looking for agents wearing brown shirts with cute little logos attached to the sleeves.