1. Impact
1.1. International Franchise Association, Inc. vs. City of Seattle (2016)
1.1.1. Interprets the Commerce Clause according to Family Winemakers v. Jenkins standards - "The Ordinance Violates the Commerce Clause so long as the 'evidence in the record demonstrates the law has a discriminatory purpose.'"
1.2. DIRECTV, LLC v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Revenue (2015)
1.2.1. Cites the court's decision that advantages afforded to small wineries "bear little relation to the market challenges caused by the relative size of the wineries"
2. Importance
2.1. Any business cannot favor in-state interests over out-of-state interests without a legitimate local need
2.1.1. The first case noted under Impact (International Franchise Association, Inc. vs. City of Seattle) details how minimum wage laws can be implemented for small versus large businesses
2.1.1.1. Crucial to owners of franchises - small business owners part of a larger corporation since the law defines business size based on aggregate employees in the US
2.1.1.1.1. If you only employ 15 people at your Subway location, but Subways across the US employ 100,000 - why are you subject to the $15 minimum wage requirement if a business in Seattle that employs 499 people is not?
2.1.2. It reinforces that even if there is a legitimate local reason to have discriminatory laws, unless there is a local need that cannot be achieved through other means, the law is invalid via the Commerce Clause
2.2. Understanding the way the laws are intended is crucial to making the most of your business landscape
2.2.1. What can you take advantage of?
2.2.2. What should you avoid?
2.3. Business professionals should be aware of state and local laws which discriminate which are not "directly" discriminatory
2.3.1. Can laws be written in favor of the locality with language that is indirect and does not constitute a local need?
2.3.2. How can these impact your business directly?
2.3.2.1. Are others getting advantages that your business is not?
2.3.2.2. Are you receiving advantages that are technically invalid? If so, what should you do about them?
2.3.2.2.1. While still legal, can take advantage, but know that business process may need to change in the future
3. Influence
3.1. All wineries regardless of size will be able to enjoy the same benefits in terms of streamlining of distribution, reduction of mark ups and selling all produced wines
3.1.1. Unless further non-discriminatory regulation is released, or it is shown that there is a local need that cannot be non-discriminatory
3.2. Consumers will reap the benefits of being able to purchase wines from more wineries at perhaps lower costs due to increased competition
3.2.1. Can small wineries keep up with this pricing demand?
3.3. Similar laws which appear non-discriminatory, but still favor in-state and disfavor out-of-state competition will be invalidated based on this decision
3.4. Further defines "fair" intrastate trade
3.4.1. Can laws be defined that allow fair intrastate trade that still gives advantages to small wineries to help them compete?
3.4.2. Understand the interpretation of local needs that cannot allow for complete fairness
3.4.2.1. Intended advantages do not outweigh disadvantages for the opposing side
4. Facts
4.1. Parties
4.1.1. Family Winemakers of California
4.1.2. State of Massachusetts
4.1.2.1. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
4.2. What happened
4.2.1. In 2006, Massachusetts entered into law that the distribution of small vs. large wineries had different licensing/distribution rules
4.2.1.1. Small wineries (<30,000 gallons of grape wine produced) could distribute to any combination of wholesalers, retailers or directly to consumers
4.2.1.1.1. Allows to streamline distribution and reduce price mark ups provided by wholesalers/retailers
4.2.1.1.2. Allows them to sell all products - not just those chosen by wholesalers
4.2.1.2. Large wineries (30,000 gallons+ of grape wine produced) needed to choose to distribute to wholesalers or directly to consumers (not both)
4.2.1.2.1. Large wineries produce of 98% of US wine
4.2.1.2.2. Can only choose one distribution method, cannot distribute to retailers at all
4.3. History
4.3.1. After prohibition was ended, all alcohol distribution was done via a three-tiered system
4.3.1.1. 1. Distributors to Wholesalers
4.3.1.2. 2. Wholesalers to Retailers
4.3.1.3. 3. Retailers to Consumers
4.3.2. In 2005, an existing rule in Massachusetts allowed in-state wineries to receive distribution benefits over out-of-state wineries since they were allowed to bypass the three-tiered system and go through any combination of wholesalers, retailers and consumers
4.3.2.1. Ruled invalid by the Supreme Court under Commerce Clause
4.3.2.2. Directly favors in-state versus out-of-state economic interests
5. Issue Before the Court
5.1. Does the small versus large winery distinction allow Massachusetts wineries to receive an unfair economic advantage over those wineries outside of Massachusetts?
6. Rule of Law
6.1. The Commerce Clause of the 21st Amendment states that only the national government has authority over intrastate commerce.
6.1.1. States cannot create laws that give differential treatment to in-state versus out-of-state economic interests
6.1.1.1. If this occurs, there must be a legitimate local purpose that cannot be achieved via non-discriminatory means
7. Application
7.1. Plaintiff must prove that there is an unfair economic advantage given to in-state commerce
7.1.1. Differing rules of distribution can impact (1) products offered, (2) distribution methods/streamlining, (3) product markups
7.1.1.1. All MA wineries are able to take advantage of the distribution benefits provided to small wineries
7.1.1.1.1. Distribution benefit provided to all in-state wineries
7.1.1.2. Some out of state wineries are able take advantage of distribution benefits
7.1.1.2.1. Distribution benefit provided to out-of-state small wineries
7.1.1.3. All large wineries are out-of-state and are unable to take advantage of any distribution benefits
7.1.1.3.1. Since large wineries are unable to take advantage of the distribution benefit and must choose either wholesalers or consumers (and no combination thereof), there is an economic disadvantage for wine sales from large out-of-state wineries
7.2. Winemakers (Plaintiff) argue that the 30,000 gallon cap on grape wine unfairly benefits MA wineries as none of them classify as "large"
7.2.1. All MA wineries are under the 30,000 gallon cap
7.2.1.1. Argued that the cap only alters the terms of in-state versus out-of-state restrictions previously enacted by MA (and invalidated)
7.3. Defendant must prove that the law is for a local legitimate purpose, since it is favorable to in-state versus out-of-state wineries
7.3.1. Court documented that no attempt was made by Defendant to back this with evidentiary support
7.3.2. Maine v. Taylor (1986) case states that Maine was allowed to discriminate against importing live baitfish from other states since they may upset the Maine ecosystem
7.3.2.1. Since no alternative was presented that could both serve the local need and be non-discriminatory, law was ruled not to violate the Commerce Clause
7.4. Defendant argues that the amount of out-of-state small wineries compared to the number of in-state small wineries makes the law as stated, non-advantageous to MA wineries
7.4.1. Allows all small wineries to compete in market (2% market share for small wineries)
7.4.1.1. Why is fruit wine excluded from cap methodology?
7.4.1.1.1. MA largest winery exceeded the cap, but was excluded from law as much of the product was non-grape wine
7.4.1.1.2. Non-grape wines are not treated differently in the industry/by consumers (are all wine types created equally?)
7.4.1.2. Small winery definition different than other federal and even other MA regulations. The cap sizes are different and often do not exclude non-grape wines
8. Conclusion
8.1. US Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court
8.1.1. The 2006 MA law altered the competitive balance to favor MA wineries and disfavor out-of-state competition; there was no local need to necessitate this imbalance