Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Label Retail Alcohol Bills topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Package‑store group and distillers clash over private‑label rules, training and transfer fees
Summary
A package‑store trade group and the Distilled Spirits Council offered opposing views on private‑label distilled spirits and several off‑premise regulatory bills. Retailers warned against supplier control and transfer fees; distillers and others urged limits on preferencing and clearer labeling.
A panel representing Massachusetts off‑premise alcohol retailers and national distillers testified before the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure on a suite of bills affecting package stores, private labels, transfers, training and sales rules.
Rob Melian, who identified himself as executive director and general counsel for the Massachusetts Package Stores Association, said the group opposed a set of bills that would allow discounts and allow supplier influence over retail shelf placement. ‘‘H350 is a bill that would allow suppliers to be able to dictate what is on the shelf of a retailer and we are in opposition to the bill as it is currently written,’’ Melian said, calling the proposal ‘‘another tier controlling what is on the shelf of the retail tier.’’ He also opposed a proposed transfer fee that ‘‘could be up to 25% of the value of the license,’’ which he described as punitive for owners selling at a loss.
Melian and other retail witnesses voiced support for H344, which would mandate beverage‑alcohol training for off‑premise licensees, and for proposals that would prohibit self‑checkout for alcoholic beverages (H366). Retail testimony emphasized loss‑prevention concerns and the role of trained staff in controlling a regulated product.
Amy Deloney, senior vice president for state policy at the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, supported legislation to govern private‑label distilled spirits but warned that some retail private labels can harm independent suppliers by ‘‘provid[ing] preferential shelf space, unlimited in‑store advertising and promotion’’ and by giving ‘‘retailer employees direct[ing] customers looking for a specific independent brand to a very similar looking private label brand.’’ Deloney said private‑label products ‘‘play a considerable role in the beverage alcohol marketplace,’’ but urged rules to prevent unfair preferencing that could squeeze independent brands and new entrants.
Other items raised included a proposal discussed by witnesses to extend the applicability of fines (rather than suspensions) to all store sales during a penalty period, and testimony opposing a bill to permit retail alcohol sales on Thanksgiving (currently prohibited, along with Christmas Day in testimony). Witnesses described a mix of positions: retailers seeking protections for small operators (against supplier leverage and transfer fees) and also endorsing increased training and loss‑prevention rules; distillers urging disclosure and limits on retailer preferencing.
Why it matters: The bills in question would touch licensing economics, retail business models and how distilled‑spirits products are labeled and merchandised in Massachusetts stores. Testimony revealed competing industry interests—retailers’ desire for control over private labeling and operations, and distillers’ concerns about preferential treatment and disclosure to consumers.
The committee did not take votes on the package during the hearing; a number of bill numbers were listed on the committee docket at the close of the session.
