Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Delivery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee hears split testimony on bill to allow alcohol delivery and curbside pickup
Summary
Supporters told the General Law Subcommittee H 3857 would modernize sales and include safeguards such as ID checks, ZIP-code limits and training; independent retailers warned the measure could increase liability and undercut small stores.
Chair Case Britton’s general law subcommittee heard competing views on House Bill 3857, which would allow curbside pickup and local home delivery of alcoholic beverages in South Carolina.
Proponents said the measure modernizes commerce while keeping existing sales hours and safeguards. Orin Smith of the Palmetto Promise Institute said the bill builds in ID checks and other limits and “we think it’s good when the free market can exist with safeguards built in,” arguing delivery could reduce risky driving after drinking. Krista Henson, executive director of the South Carolina Retailers Association, said roughly 40 other states allow some form of alcohol delivery or curbside pickup and she has not seen evidence those states experienced meaningful increases in DUIs or domestic violence tied to such changes.
Small retailers and independent store operators told lawmakers the bill could shift risk and revenue away from neighborhood stores. Brent Doolittle, owner of Linx Liquor, said delivery “takes all of that out of our hands” — removing the trained, in-store interaction he credits with preventing sales to intoxicated customers — and warned it “frightens the heck out of me” because of potential liability and margin pressure from large competitors.
Corporate delivery services described company safeguards. Jake Holmgren of DoorDash said drivers who handle alcohol must be at least 21, complete company training modules, meet recipients face-to-face and scan government-issued IDs; he said drivers are authorized to refuse delivery for visible intoxication and return the product to the store.
Lawmakers pressed for specifics on enforcement, age verification and liability. Committee members asked whether purchaser and recipient must be the same person, how the bill’s ZIP-code delivery limit would work in practice and whether the legislation requires pre-verification of age. Witnesses said the bill restricts delivery to the same five‑digit ZIP code and contiguous ZIPs, requires training for delivery staff, and that company policies typically require the recipient to be the purchaser; witnesses acknowledged differences in how pre-verification is handled across states.
No vote was taken. Chair Britton said the committee planned to reconvene next Tuesday to consider amendments and further testimony.
