Massachusetts regulators have launched an investigation into whether providers are paying for access. In this case, it’s about beer, not political donations. Pay-to-play is illegal under Massachusetts and federal liquor control laws.
The restrictions date back to the end of Prohibition, to keep large breweries from dominating the market. Small breweries have to compete for limited space at the bar. This is not true for the grocery store where non-alcohol manufacturers routinely pay a slotting fee for access to the supermarket shelves.
A local craft brewing company executive aired his grievances on Twitter, and complained that two restaurants would not serve his beer because he would not buy a beer line. The response, in part, was
“I personally don’t even know you, never asked you for a damn thing, never intend to ask you for a damn thing and will not serve your inferior product. ”
From compliance perspective it looks like the Massachusetts law must hinge on the word “substantial”
No licensee shall give or permit to be given money or any other thing of substantial value in any effort to induce any person to persuade or influence any other person to purchase, or contract for the purchase of any particular brand or kind of alcoholic beverages, or to persuade or influence any person to refrain from purchasing, or contracting for the purchase of any particular brand or kind of alcoholic beverages.
Whenever I go into a bar or liquor store, I see plenty of signs and other items that have clearly been given to the retailer. I guess the glowing Budweiser sign is not “substantial.” The accusations are for payments or merchandise on a grander scale.
Does it matter? Is this a regulation that helps the economics for a consumer?
Resources:
- ABCC examining brewers, others for law violations by Dan Adams in the Boston Globe
- Pretty Things’ Paquette Publicly Protests Pay-to-Play by Chris Fumari in Brewhound
- Blurred Draught Lines? by Christopher Hughes in Boston Magazine
- Massachusetts 204-2:08 Inducements
