House Regulatory Reform advances package of beverage and liquor-code updates, including pets in tasting rooms and nonalcoholic beer in taprooms

The Michigan House Committee on Regulatory Reform on an extended agenda advanced a package of bills touching the liquor code and beverage industry, approving substitutes and votes that send several measures toward the rules committee.

The committee voted to advance bills that would allow businesses such as breweries, wineries and distilleries to permit customers’ dogs on premises in limited circumstances (House Bills 4204 and 4205), to allow nonalcoholic (NA) beer sales in microbrewery taprooms (House Bill 4823), and to clarify how distributors’ rights apply to brand extensions and ready‑to‑drink (RTD) canned cocktails (House Bill 4824). The committee also adopted technical fixes and substitutes on related bills that were reported with recommendation.

Why it matters: The package updates multiple sections of Michigan’s liquor law and business practice around beer and beverage distribution at a time when industry participants say consumer demand and product categories are changing. Sponsors and industry witnesses told the committee the bills aim to reduce ambiguity for distributors, expand consumer options in taprooms, and address operational gaps that affect wholesalers and small producers.

What the committee approved and key details - Pets in tasting rooms (HB 4204 and HB 4205): Representative (Rep.) Michael Roth, speaking for the measures, said the substitutes were intended to “clarify the actual establishments, and also whether there’s hot food being served on premise.” Roth and committee members emphasized the measure is optional for businesses: a commercial kitchen or establishment serving hot food would not be covered, and participation would be by choice. Roth cited local examples such as Bowers Harbor Vineyards and mentioned the website drinkwithyourdog.org as an industry resource mentioned during testimony. The committee adopted and reported HB 4204 (substitute H‑1) and HB 4205 (substitute H‑1) (motions carried; HB 4204 recorded as 12 yes, 0 no, 1 pass; HB 4205 recorded as 13 yes, 0 no, 0 pass). The transcript records supporters filing cards from the Michigan Brewers Guild and Michigan Humane among others.

- Nonalcoholic beer in taprooms and related fixes (HB 4823): Chair Representative Aragona introduced substitute H‑1 for HB 4823, which would explicitly allow microbreweries’ taprooms to serve NA beers. Aragona said the change “will allow microbrewers who normally make their own beer … to purchase NA beers, only NA beers … to allow their clientele to drink something that has very little alcohol or sometimes even no alcohol.” Industry witnesses including Scott Graham and Scott Newenbale of the Michigan Brewers Guild told the committee that taprooms face demand for alternatives beyond soda and water and that NA beer production is technically challenging for small brewers to manufacture in house. The committee adopted substitute H‑1 for HB 4823 and then referred the bill to the House Rules Committee (roll call recorded as 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass on referral).

- Brand‑extension clarity and RTDs (HB 4824): Representative Bierlein testified HB 4824 refines statutory definitions of “brand” and “brand extension,” proposing that a supplier’s trademark used prominently on packaging can qualify the item as an extension even where container, formulation or alcohol category changes. Industry testimony from Brett Visner (Michigan beer & wine wholesalers) and examples shown for New Holland and Jim Beam packaging were used to illustrate when a new product uses an existing brand’s trademark prominently (which would be treated as an extension under the bill) versus when a new product is marketed under a distinct name. The committee adopted substitute H‑3 for HB 4824 and referred it to Rules (substitute and referral recorded as 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass).

- Distribution, customs shops and EFT penalties: Witnesses for wholesalers asked the committee to correct how custom shops adjacent to international bridges are treated so they may buy from Michigan distributors (rather than import across the border), and to add mixed‑spirit RTDs to an existing promotional rule that allows manufacturers to provide one sample per customer. Wholesalers also described a previous transition to electronic funds transfer (EFT) for distributor‑to‑retailer payments and asked that substitutes add limited penalties to deter repeated bounced payments that currently leave distributors bearing system costs. Committee members and witnesses discussed concerns about imposing penalties on struggling accounts.

- Technical and related bills: The committee adopted substitutes and reported other bills with technical updates including House Bill 4422 (ADA‑related changes referenced from earlier testimony) and House Bill 4663 (substitute H‑2), both of which were advanced to the Rules Committee (roll calls recorded as 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass). Several supporting organizations filed cards in favor of the liquor‑code bills, including the Michigan Brewers Guild, Michigan beer and wine wholesalers, and several distributors and universities who said they supported the substitutes.

Industry testimony and concerns Industry witnesses repeatedly framed the bills as clarifications to avoid costly disputes and to help small businesses adapt to changing consumer preferences. Brett Visner told the committee the brand‑extension bill is meant to “provide clarity of the law so that we prevent costly disputes and litigation.” Brewers testified nonalcoholic beverage production is technically demanding and may be unsafe if attempted without appropriate facilities and testing, making the taproom‑sale change attractive for small brewers who cannot produce NA beer at scale.

Some committee members pushed back or pressed for details. Representative Wozniak asked earlier whether charcuterie or hors d’oeuvres served in tasting rooms would be allowed under the pets bills; Rep. Roth and the chair confirmed that the bills exclude establishments with a commercial kitchen producing hot meals. Representatives also questioned EFT penalty language and expressed concern about adding financial penalties for struggling retailers.

Votes at a glance (selected roll‑call tallies from the committee session) - HB 4204 (substitute H‑1): motion to adopt substitute and to report with recommendation — recorded as 12 yes, 0 no, 1 pass; motion prevailed. - HB 4205 (substitute H‑1): substitute adopted and reported — recorded as 13 yes, 0 no, 0 pass; motion prevailed. - HB 4823 (substitute H‑1): substitute adopted; referred to Rules — referral recorded as 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass. - HB 4824 (substitute H‑3): substitute adopted; referred to Rules — recorded 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass. - HB 4422 (substitute H‑1): substitute adopted; referred to Rules — recorded 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass. - HB 4663 (substitute H‑2): substitute adopted and reported — recorded 14 yes, 0 no, 0 pass.

What’s next Most bills advanced by the committee were referred to the House Rules Committee for further consideration. Sponsors and industry groups signaled willingness to work with regulators and stakeholders on technical details such as testing standards, advertising limits for university venues, and proportional EFT penalty language. The committee also heard a presentation from the Hemp Beverage Alliance (see separate item) that proponents say demonstrates market interest in nonalcoholic alternatives.

Ending note: The committee’s actions do not, by themselves, change state law; they move bills forward in the legislative process. Sponsors and witnesses emphasized the package’s stated aims: to clarify distribution rights, expand consumer choices in taprooms and tasting rooms, and address technical regulatory and marketplace gaps.