For years, New York alcohol brands that wanted to say “a portion of proceeds supports…” on their labels ran into a wall at the New York State Liquor Authority (“NYSLA” or “SLA”). That has now changed.

On October 22, 2026, the SLA announced that brand labels may identify a charitable organization and the share of sales or proceeds it will receive. The new policy is set out in Advisory 2026-5, dated September 24, 2026, and took effect immediately.

The short answer: New York alcohol labels may now state that a specific amount or portion of a product’s sales or proceeds will go to a named charity. The charity must be a bona fide organization whose donations are tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes. The brand must submit documentation of the charity’s eligibility, the donation arrangement, and permission to use the charity’s name or logo, and the SLA will still review the label for misleading statements.

Why Charitable Labels Were Off-Limits Before

The old policy came from Section 111 of New York’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Section 111 bars anyone not disclosed to the SLA and named on a license from using that license or holding an ownership, controlling, or other prohibited financial interest in the licensed business.

The SLA had read that rule to cover charitable pledges. Its view was that promising a charity part of a product’s proceeds amounted to sharing the business’s profits with an outside organization not listed on the license. As a result, the SLA refused brand label registrations that said a portion of sales would benefit a named charity.

What Changed

In Advisory 2026-5, the SLA revisited that reading. It pointed to its earlier Advisory #2017-6, which already allows licensees to donate alcohol from their own inventory to qualifying charities. The SLA concluded that, for Section 111 purposes, there is no meaningful difference between donating inventory and donating cash: in both cases the licensee is giving away its own assets.

The question the SLA now asks is whether an arrangement gives an outside organization ownership, control, or a prohibited financial interest in the business. A charitable donation reference on a label will not, on its own, be treated as evidence of that kind of interest. The SLA also said that the size or length of a donation will not, by itself, decide whether an arrangement is permissible.

The change is part of Governor Hochul’s EXPRESS NY initiative to remove outdated regulatory barriers.

What the SLA Requires

1. A Qualifying Charity

The organization must be a bona fide religious or charitable organization; a bona fide educational, fraternal, or service organization; or a bona fide organization of veterans or volunteer firefighters. In every case, contributions to it must be deductible for federal income tax purposes.

2. A Truthful, Specific Statement

The label may state that a specified amount or portion of the product’s sales or proceeds will go to a named charity, such as a fixed amount per bottle or a percentage of sales. The statement must be truthful and not misleading, and the SLA will continue to review labels under its rules on deceptive statements (Part 84 of its regulations).

3. Supporting Documentation

When you submit a brand label registration with a charitable reference, the advisory requires:

• Reasonable proof that the organization qualifies, such as an IRS determination letter, Form 990, or New York’s CHAR500 filing;
• A statement explaining the relationship between the licensee and the charity;
• A statement describing the donation arrangement, including how long it will last and the exact amount or formula used to calculate the donation;
• Documentation that you are authorized to use the charity’s name, logo, or other identifying marks, if they appear on the label; and
• A copy of any required federal label approval (COLA).

4. A Separate Look at the Arrangement

Label approval is not the end of the inquiry. The SLA reserves the right to investigate the underlying arrangement if the facts suggest the charity has an ownership interest, control, or another prohibited financial interest in the business. If so, the arrangement can still be treated as an unlawful use of the license under Section 111.

Other Rules to Keep in Mind

Advisory 2026-5 resolves the New York licensing question. It does not override other rules that apply to the same label or promotion.

• Federal label review. The advisory requires charitable statements to comply with applicable federal requirements. For products that need a COLA, TTB reviews every statement on the label, including charitable references, and prohibits statements that are false or misleading.
• Other states. A label sold outside New York must also meet each other state’s rules, which may treat charitable references differently.
• Charitable sales promotion laws. New York and many other states regulate “commercial co-venturer” arrangements, in which a business advertises that purchases will benefit a charity. These laws may require a written agreement with the charity, specific disclosures, or filings, separate from alcohol rules.
• Trade practice and tied-house rules. Keep the arrangement between your company and the charity. Involving a retailer, for example by tying donations to a particular bar’s sales or an event a retailer hosts, can raise separate tied-house and trade practice questions.
• Keeping the promise. Once a label says a donation will be made, the brand needs to make it, in the stated amount and for the stated period, and keep records to show it. If the arrangement ends, labels still in the market can become misleading.
• Advertising. Social media posts, shelf talkers, and other ads that repeat the charitable message should match the label and the actual arrangement.

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

I recently joined Jimmy Moreland and Brigid McCabe on The MHW Mark Podcast to discuss the legal and regulatory considerations involved in developing and bringing non-alcoholic beverages to market.

Although these products may sit outside traditional beverage alcohol categories, that does not necessarily mean the regulatory analysis is simple. Product composition, alcohol content, labeling, and how a beverage is characterized and marketed can all raise important questions. Even the term “no-alcohol” deserves a closer look.

In the episode, we discuss some of the considerations brands should keep in mind as they navigate this evolving segment of the beverage industry.

Thank you to the MHW team for having me and for a thoughtful conversation about an increasingly important area of beverage law.

Listen to the full episode: Ep. 57: The Surprisingly Non-Straightforward World of Non-Alcoholic Beverage Compliance

On Reserve is published by Lindsey Zahn P.C. and covers legal and regulatory developments affecting the beverage alcohol and related industries.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

That changed in a meaningful way this month.

On October 2, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a proposed settlement with Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC (“Southern”), the nation’s largest wine and spirits distributor, resolving the FTC’s lawsuit alleging that Southern engaged in unlawful price discrimination against small and independent retailers. The settlement represents the FTC’s first Robinson-Patman enforcement action resulting in relief in a generation.

For the wine industry, this is more than an interesting antitrust footnote. The case provides a reminder that pricing practices, discounts, rebates, promotional programs, and other commercial arrangements can raise legal issues that go well beyond the three-tier system and state alcohol beverage laws.

So, is Robinson-Patman back?

Perhaps not in the sense of an immediate wave of enforcement actions—but wine and spirits businesses would be wise to start paying attention. 

A Robinson-Patman Refresher

The Robinson-Patman Act generally prohibits certain forms of price discrimination between competing purchasers of the same or similar products when the discrimination has the requisite competitive effect.

The law does not, however, require every customer to receive exactly the same price.

There are important exceptions and defenses. For example, different prices may be justified by legitimate differences in the seller’s costs of supplying different customers. The law also recognizes circumstances involving changing market conditions and a seller’s efforts to meet a competitor’s equally low price. Quantity discounts are not automatically unlawful simply because a large customer receives a lower price.

The practical question is therefore not simply:

“Did Customer A receive a lower price than Customer B?”

It is more complicated:

“Why did Customer A receive a lower price, and can the difference be legally justified?”

That distinction is particularly important in the beverage industry, where pricing can involve volume, delivery costs, promotional programs, geographic considerations, chain-wide agreements, rebates, bill-backs, incentives, and other arrangements that may make two seemingly identical transactions meaningfully different.

What Did the FTC Allege Against Southern?

The FTC sued Southern in December 2024, alleging that the distributor charged independent retailers substantially more for the same wine and spirits products than it charged large national and regional chains.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the alleged disparities occurred even where the independent retailer and the chain retailer were located only a few miles—or, in some instances, a few blocks—apart.

The FTC alleged that large chains such as Total Wine & More, Costco, and Kroger received discounts, rebates, and other pricing benefits that were not similarly available to competing independent retailers. The agency further alleged that the price differences were not justified by actual differences in Southern’s costs of supplying the retailers.

The case therefore presented a classic Robinson-Patman scenario: a large supplier/distributor allegedly giving preferential pricing to large purchasers that compete with smaller purchasers buying the same products.

Southern, for its part, has consistently disputed the allegations. In connection with the settlement, Southern stated that it did not violate the Robinson-Patman Act and did not admit wrongdoing. The company also said it does not expect the settlement to result in material changes to its business or pricing practices.

That distinction matters. A settlement is not the same thing as a judicial finding that Southern violated the law.

What Does the Settlement Actually Require?

The proposed order is significant because it does more than tell Southern, in general terms, not to discriminate unlawfully.

For six years, an independent monitor will review certain transactions involving Southern’s sales to the five largest chain retailers in 26 states. Those states include several major wine markets, such as California and New York.

The order focuses on what are essentially “paired” transactions: sales of the same product to a major chain and to a nearby independent retailer within specified time periods.

The order establishes thresholds for identifying significant and recurring price discrimination. Among other things, recurring discriminatory pricing exceeding $5,000 over a 12-month period can trigger the order’s remedial provisions.

If the monitor determines that Southern has engaged in qualifying discriminatory pricing, the settlement provides a mechanism for compensating the affected independent retailer. In certain circumstances, Southern would pay 1.5 times the aggregated price differential. If Southern does not remedy the violation and the FTC obtains an enforcement order, the potential payment increases to twice the differential.

The order also requires Southern to provide detailed sales information to the independent monitor twice a year.

In other words, the settlement creates an ongoing compliance mechanism rather than simply resolving an old dispute.

Why This Matters to Wine Businesses

The Southern case is unusually relevant to the wine industry because pricing structures in the beverage business are rarely as simple as a posted wholesale price.

Generally speaking, and barring any applicable laws or regulations to the contrary, a supplier or distributor may offer:

• Volume discounts
• Promotional allowances
• Rebates
• Bill-backs
• Chain-specific programs
• Discounts tied to particular purchasing commitments
• Freight or delivery-related adjustments
• Promotional support
• Temporary pricing programs
• Other incentives or allowances

Some of these arrangements may be entirely legitimate. But the Southern settlement is a useful reminder that the existence of a sophisticated pricing program does not necessarily answer the legal question of wehther the resulting price difference is permissible.

For example, a distributor may legitimately incur lower costs serving a large chain that purchases substantial quantities at centralized locations. That cost difference can potentially support different pricing.

But the analysis should not stop at “they buy more.”

If the price difference is substantially greater than the actual cost savings associated with the larger transaction, or if comparable discounts are technically available to smaller competitors but structured in a way that makes them practically unavailable, additional questions may arise.

That is one reason the FTC’s original complaint focused not simply on price differences, but on whether those differences could be justified by legitimate cost savings or other recognized defenses.

The “Available to Everyone” Question

One particularly interesting issue for beverage companies is functional availability. 

A supplier or distributor may argue that a particular discount is available to all customers that meet certain requirements.

On paper, that sounds straightforward.

But what if the requirements are realistically achievable only by a handful of the largest retailers?

That does not automatically make a pricing program unlawful. But it is a reason to look more closely at how the program operates in the real world.

For wine and spirits businesses, this is an important distinction.

A promotional or discount program should not necessarily be evaluated solely by asking:

Is this program technically available to everyone?

It may also be useful to ask:

Who can realistically participate, and why?

That type of practical analysis becomes increasingly important when the customers receiving materially different pricing compete directly with one another.

Does This Mean Large Chains Cannot Receive Better Pricing?

No.

This is perhaps the most important takeaway.

Robinson-Patman does not prohibit volume discounts.

Nor does the Southern settlement establish a rule that large retailers and small retailers must always receive identical pricing.

Large customers can create genuine efficiencies. They may purchase greater quantities, require fewer deliveries, use centralized distribution, reduce handling costs, or otherwise cost less to serve.

The FTC itself emphasized that the Robinson-Patman Act permits volume discounts when they are supported by legitimate cost differences.

The issue is whether the pricing difference has a legitimate basis—not simply whether the customers are different sizes.

That distinction should be kept in mind before anyone concludes that the Southern settlement means the end of chain-specific pricing.

What About Suppliers?

Although the Southern case involves a distributor, suppliers should be paying attention as well.

Wine suppliers frequently negotiate distribution and sales programs that ultimately affect the prices at which products reach retailers. A supplier may also provide incentives, allowances, or promotional funds that are passed through the distribution system.

Those arrangements can create complicated questions about who is setting the price, who is receiving the benefit, and whether comparable opportunities are available to competing purchasers.

For suppliers negotiating distribution agreements or commercial programs, it may therefore be worthwhile to understand not only the regulatory requirements of the applicable state alcohol beverage laws, but also the competition-law implications of the pricing structure being contemplated.

This is particularly true for suppliers pursuing national distribution arrangements involving large retail chains.

What About Independent Retailers?

For independent wine and spirits retailers, the settlement may be more immediately significant.

One practical consequence is that an independent retailer may have a stronger basis for asking questions when it learns that a nearby competing chain is receiving substantially more favorable pricing for the same product.

That does not mean every price discrepancy is evidence of illegal discrimination. There may be legitimate cost differences or other explanations.

But the Southern settlement demonstrates that pricing disparities between competing retailers are not necessarily just a fact of doing business.

For independent retailers, keeping records of pricing, discounts, rebates, and comparable transactions could become increasingly important if Robinson-Patman enforcement continues.

Is this the Beginning of a Robinson-Patman Revival?

This is where things get interesting.

The Southern settlement is undoubtedly significant. The FTC itself describes it as its first Robinson-Patman enforcement action in a generation.

But it would be premature to conclude that the FTC is about to launch a Robinson-Patman case against every supplier offering different prices to different customers.

In fact, the current FTC leadership has emphasized a more targeted approach.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who had previously dissented from the decision to bring the Southern case, said in connection with the settlement that the agency’s investigation ultimately found no evidence of violations in seven of the 33 states originally examined. He also indicated that the case presented meaningful litigation risks and that the settlement was a practical way to obtain relief.

Commissioner Mark R. Meador likewise indicated that the FTC should consider developing guidance regarding how it views Robinson-Patman enforcement and when it would pursue cases.

That suggests something more nuanced than a wholesale return to the aggressive Robinson-Patman enforcement of the past.

Nevertheless, the message is clear:

The law is still on the books, and the FTC has demonstrated that it is willing to use it.

What Should Wine and Spirits Companies Do Now?

There is no reason for every beverage company to panic and rewrite its pricing structure overnight.

But this is a good time for suppliers, distributors, and retailers to take a fresh look at their commercial programs.

For companies offering different pricing to different customers, some useful questions include:

1. Why are the prices different?

Is there a documented business reason for the difference?

2. Are the differences tied to actual costs or other recognized justifications?

If a discount is described as a volume discount, what cost savings actually result from the volume?

3. Who can participate?

Are discounts and promotional programs genuinely available to similarly situated customers, or are the requirements effectively limited to the largest accounts?

4. Are pricing programs documented?

If the rationale for a price difference is legitimate, it is helpful to be able to demonstrate that rationale later.

5. Are distributors and suppliers aligned?

Pricing programs that involve multiple levels of the three-tier system should be reviewed with an understanding of how the arrangement will operate in practice.

6. Are commercial agreements consistent with the actual pricing program?

Distribution agreements, promotional agreements, rebate arrangements, and other commercial contracts should accurately reflect the program being implemented.

These are not new questions. What is new is the regulatory attention being directed toward them.

The Bottom Line

The Southern Glazer’s settlement does not mean that every difference in wine pricing is now an antitrust violation.

It does, however, make one thing clear: Robinson-Patman is no longer a law that the wine industry can comfortably assume regulators will ignore.

For decades, beverage companies operated in an environment where Robinson-Patman was more likely to appear in an antitrust textbook than in an FTC enforcement action. The Southern case changes that calculus—at least somewhat.

For wine suppliers and distributors, the lesson is not “charge everyone the same price.”

It is: Know why your prices are different. Make sure the difference has a legitimate basis. Document the reasoning. And periodically revisit whether your pricing programs still make sense as your customers, markets, and distribution arrangements change. 

For independent retailers, the lesson may be even simpler: if a nearby competing chain appears to receive substantially more favorable pricing for the same wine, it may be worth asking why.

Whether Southern Glazer’s ultimately represents the beginning of a broader Robinson-Patman revival remains to be seen.

But after decades of relative regulatory quiet, the sleeping giant has at least opened its eyes. 

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

In the episode, we discuss why non-alcoholic wine, beer, and spirit alternatives can be trickier to navigate than their alcoholic counterparts. We cover how alcohol content determines whether TTB or FDA is in charge, how FDA labeling differs from TTB’s COLA process, and what brands should watch for as they enter this fast-growing category.

If you’re producing, importing, or selling non-alcoholic beverages (or thinking about it), give the full episode a listen here.

But what about cider made from apples harvested in a particular year? Or mead made from honey produced during a particular season? Or fruit wine made from a single year’s crop?

According to current Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) regulations, the answer can depend on the type of product—and, importantly, its alcohol content.

A recently filed federal lawsuit has challenged TTB’s restrictions on vintage dates for cider, mead, and fruit wine, raising questions about whether the federal government can prohibit producers from communicating truthful information about the agricultural origins of their products.

The Lawsuit: Garden Path Fermentation v. United States

In January 2026, Washington-based Garden Path Fermentation, along with a consumer plaintiff, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington challenging TTB’s restrictions on vintage labeling for cider, mead, and fruit wine. The case is Garden Path Fermentation, LLC v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-03002.

Garden Path produces beer, cider, mead, and fruit wine and focuses on products made from agricultural ingredients. According to the allegations reported when the lawsuit was filed, the issue arose after TTB rejected a label for a cider above 7% ABV that included a vintage year. The producer argued that the vintage information accurately communicated the year associated with the agricultural ingredients used to make the product.

The plaintiffs contend that TTB’s regulations create an unusual distinction: grape wine producers can use vintage information on their labels, while producers of cider, mead, and fruit wine subject to TTB’s wine-labeling rules generally cannot use vintage dates in the same way.

The lawsuit argues that the restriction violates the First Amendment by prohibiting truthful commercial speech and also challenges TTB’s authority under federal administrative law. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.

Why Does 7% ABV Matter?

One of the more interesting aspects of the dispute is the role of the 7% ABV threshold.

Certain wine products containing less than 7% alcohol by volume fall under FDA labeling jurisdiction rather than TTB’s wine-labeling regulations. The lawsuit points to this distinction as creating an unusual result: a cider, mead, or fruit wine below 7% ABV may be subject to a different labeling regime than an otherwise similar product above 7% ABV.

That means the same basic product concept can face different labeling regulations depending on its alcohol content.

For producers developing lower-ABV products, this distinction is particularly important. The regulatory framework applicable to a wine product should be determined early in the development and labeling process, rather than after a label has already been designed.

Why Is a Vintage Date Important?

For traditional wine, a vintage date can communicate the year in which the grapes were harvested. For other agricultural products, producers may view the information in much the same way.

A cider producer, for example, may source apples from a particular year’s harvest. A mead producer may want to communicate information about the agricultural origin of the honey used in production. A fruit winery may similarly work with fruit from a specific growing season.

From the producer’s perspective, the vintage can therefore be more than a marketing device. It can be a way of communicating information about when the underlying agricultural ingredients were produced or harvested. A year can also help inform a consumer about the quality of a particular harvest (with some years, understandably, being better than others).

That distinction is central to the arguments raised in the Garden Path litigation.

What Does TTB Currently Allow?

TTB’s regulations expressly address vintage dating for wine and impose specific requirements regarding the use of vintage dates and the records needed to substantiate them. Notably, TTB’s regulations on vintage years (found at 27 CFR 4.27) speak to “grapes” only.

The important point for producers is that a producer should not assume that a vintage statement permissible on a grape wine label is automatically permissible on a cider, mead, or fruit wine label.

The First Amendment Question

One of the most significant legal issues raised by the lawsuit is whether the government can restrict truthful commercial speech simply because the information appears on a particular type of alcohol beverage.

The plaintiffs argue that a truthful vintage statement is consumer information rather than misleading advertising. If a cider was made from apples harvested in 2024, for example, the argument goes, communicating that fact to consumers should not become misleading merely because the product is cider rather than grape wine.

The government, of course, may regulate commercial speech in certain circumstances, particularly where restrictions are aimed at preventing consumer deception or protecting other legitimate governmental interests.

The question raised by the lawsuit is whether the particular restriction on vintage information is sufficiently justified under the First Amendment.

The Administrative Law Question

The case also raises broader questions about the scope of TTB’s regulatory authority.

Federal agencies have significant authority to administer and enforce statutes enacted by Congress. But agencies must operate within the authority granted to them by Congress and follow applicable administrative-law requirements.

The plaintiffs argue, among other things, that TTB’s vintage-date restriction goes beyond what federal law permits.

That issue is potentially significant beyond vintage dating. Courts have increasingly scrutinized agency authority and statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), which overturned the longstanding Chevron framework requiring judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Whether that broader administrative-law landscape ultimately affects this particular dispute remains to be seen.

Where Does the Lawsuit Stand Now?

Although the lawsuit initially attracted attention because of its challenge to TTB’s vintage-date rules, there has already been an important development.

In June 2026, a federal judge dismissed Garden Path’s lawsuit after concluding that the plaintiff had not adequately established that its challenge was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. The dismissal was not a ruling that TTB’s vintage-date restriction is lawful. According to reporting on the decision, the court allowed Garden Path an opportunity to amend its complaint.

That distinction is important. The court has not yet resolved the underlying questions of whether TTB’s restriction violates the First Amendment or exceeds the agency’s statutory authority. The litigation therefore remains one to watch, particularly if an amended complaint allows the substantive issues to proceed. Like many industry folks, we will be watching for further developments and are excited to see how this unfolds as it is has been one of the questions we have pondered for some time.

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

As we reach the midpoint of 2026, several legal and regulatory trends are worth monitoring. While not every development will impact every winery, understanding the broader landscape can help businesses identify areas that may warrant additional attention.

Below are five developments the wine industry should be watching during the second half of 2026.

Tariffs Continue to Create Uncertainty for Wine Businesses

International trade remains one of the most closely watched issues affecting the wine industry.

Over the past year, changes to U.S. tariff policy have created uncertainty for importers, foreign wineries, distributors, and retailers. Businesses importing wine into the United States continue to monitor tariff developments, which can affect product pricing, sourcing decisions, inventory planning, and contractual relationships.

Although many businesses cannot control changes in trade policy, they can evaluate whether their contracts appropriately address issues such as:

• Price adjustments
• Supply disruptions
• Allocation of increased costs
• Delivery obligations
• Force majeure provisions
• Inventory planning

Companies engaged in international trade should continue monitoring developments throughout the remainder of the year.

Direct-to-Consumer Shipping Laws Continue to Evolve

Direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) wine shipping remains one of the most dynamic areas of alcohol regulation.

While consumer demand for direct shipping continues to grow, states frequently amend their licensing, reporting, tax, and shipping requirements. During 2026, several states have considered or implemented changes affecting container size restrictions, licensing requirements, production caps, and other aspects of DTC shipping.

For wineries selling directly to consumers, compliance often involves much more than obtaining a shipping permit. Businesses may need to monitor:

• Licensing requirements
• Tax collection obligations
• Reporting deadlines
• Product restrictions
• Carrier requirements
• Annual renewal obligations

Because requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction, wineries shipping into multiple states should periodically review their compliance programs.

Marketing Claims Continue to Receive Increased Attention

Consumers continue to seek wines marketed with terms such as:

• “Natural”
• “Clean”
• “Sustainable”
• “Regenerative”
• “Organic”
• “Low sugar”
• “No additives”

At the same time, regulators and private litigants continue to scrutinize advertising and labeling claims across the food and beverage industry.

Wine businesses should remember that marketing statements—whether appearing on labels, websites, social media, or other promotional materials—may be subject to multiple regulatory frameworks depending on the circumstances.

As sustainability and health-conscious marketing become increasingly common, businesses should carefully evaluate whether claims are accurate, substantiated, and consistent across all marketing platforms.

Regulatory Compliance Is Becoming More Complex—Not Less

One consistent trend throughout the wine industry is the increasing complexity of compliance.

Today’s wineries often operate across multiple regulatory frameworks involving:

• Federal alcohol regulations
• FDA requirements for certain products
• State licensing laws
• Direct shipping requirements
• Advertising restrictions
• Environmental marketing claims
• Import and customs regulations
• Distribution laws

As businesses expand into new markets, launch new products, or diversify their sales channels, their regulatory obligations often become increasingly complex. One recent example is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) requirement that food facility registrations include a Data Universal Numbering System (“DUNS”) number. Although the FDA implemented this requirement several years ago, obtaining a DUNS number has become increasingly time-consuming, particularly for foreign facilities. As a result, businesses intending to sell food or alcohol beverage products in the United States should account for this additional lead time and begin the FDA food facility registration process—and the DUNS number application process—well in advance of their anticipated market entry.

Conducting periodic compliance reviews can help businesses identify potential issues before they become larger operational challenges.

Looking Ahead

The second half of 2026 is likely to bring continued developments in alcohol regulation, including ongoing discussions regarding international trade, direct-to-consumer shipping, federal labeling requirements, and evolving marketing practices.

While not every regulatory change will require immediate action, staying informed can help wineries and wine brands better anticipate future compliance considerations and business planning needs.

As always, the legal landscape continues to evolve, and businesses should monitor developments that may affect their particular operations.

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

TTB and CBP are actively working to resolve the issue, with a fix anticipated by the end of April. In the meantime, importers should carefully review all entry summary line data and wait to file claims until the system reflects accurate information. Notably, the system will not allow use of the manual claims process where data appears available, even if inaccurate, making it especially important to delay submission. 

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

In Episode 295: “Wine Law Essentials: Contracts, TTB, Social Media & More,” we dive into some of the most common legal pitfalls that wine brands and wineries encounter and how to avoid them. We covered the critical importance of well-crafted contracts, how to think about ownership and rights in agreements, navigating TTB labeling rules, compliance issues around producing non-alcoholic wines, and how to stay on the right side of social media advertising law. This conversational but practical episode was built around equipping listeners with the tools to reduce risk and protect their brands from costly compliance mistakes.

What makes the Sustainable Winegrowing podcast such a valuable resource is its focus on practical, actionable content tailored to the real-world needs of today’s wine industry. Whether you’re tuning in for cutting-edge viticulture science, sustainable vineyard practices, or business advice like we discussed, each episode connects industry professionals with insights that help strengthen their operations and long-term viability.

If you haven’t yet checked out the show, I highly recommend it — especially if you want to stay up to date on trends and issues shaping the future of sustainable winegrowing and winery operations.

In Episode 295: “Wine Law Essentials: Contracts, TTB, Social Media & More,” we dive into some of the most common legal pitfalls that wine brands and wineries encounter and how to avoid them. We covered the critical importance of well-crafted contracts, how to think about ownership and rights in agreements, navigating TTB labeling rules, compliance issues around producing non-alcoholic wines, and how to stay on the right side of social media advertising law. This conversational but practical episode was built around equipping listeners with the tools to reduce risk and protect their brands from costly compliance mistakes.

What makes the Sustainable Winegrowing podcast such a valuable resource is its focus on practical, actionable content tailored to the real-world needs of today’s wine industry. Whether you’re tuning in for cutting-edge viticulture science, sustainable vineyard practices, or business advice like we discussed, each episode connects industry professionals with insights that help strengthen their operations and long-term viability.

If you haven’t yet checked out the show, I highly recommend it — especially if you want to stay up to date on trends and issues shaping the future of sustainable winegrowing and winery operations.

For craft beverage entrepreneurs, this change is significant. Brand owners can now legally collaborate with third-party distillers, breweries, wineries, or cidermakers, allowing them to enter the market faster, scale efficiently, and leverage local production resources. This aligns New York with broader trends in other states that encourage small producer growth while supporting local agriculture and economic development.

The law also clarifies regulatory expectations and provides a clear path for contract production, giving both brand owners and producers confidence in compliance. Industry stakeholders will be watching closely as implementation unfolds, but for any new or growing brand, understanding and leveraging this new license is essential.

For craft beverage businesses in New York, this legislation is not just a regulatory update—it’s a strategic opportunity to expand production options and bring new products to market more efficiently.

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

1. TTB Modernization and Digital Filings

This year, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) continued to push toward modernization, including enhancements to online label approvals and formula submissions. While the TTB has not fully automated all filing processes, brands that embraced digital tools found significant efficiency gains. However, delays in label approvals and formula reviews persisted in some categories, emphasizing the need for early planning when launching new products or making formula changes.

2. Increased Focus on Non-Alcoholic and Low-Alcohol Beverages

The market for low- and non-alcoholic beverages continued to expand in 2025, and with it came new regulatory and labeling considerations. The FDA and TTB are increasingly scrutinizing claims related to non-alcoholic and functional beverages, including health-oriented statements, sugar content, and ingredient labeling. Brands entering this space must carefully navigate both agencies’ requirements to avoid enforcement actions or delays in market entry.

3. State-Level Compliance Complexity

State regulations for alcohol distribution, sales, and labeling remain complex and varied. Several states introduced new brand registration or reporting requirements, particularly in the areas of direct-to-consumer shipping and e-commerce. Brands that do not maintain active state-level registrations risk penalties or disrupted distribution, highlighting the need for ongoing compliance oversight across multiple jurisdictions.

4. E-Commerce and Direct-to-Consumer Expansion

Direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) sales continued to grow in 2025, fueled by e-commerce platforms and third-party integrations. While DTC offers exciting revenue opportunities, brands must carefully manage licensing, shipping restrictions, and tax compliance. Legal issues around third-party fulfillment, data use, and liability for shipping alcohol remain a top concern for e-commerce operators.

5. Advertising, Social Media, and Compliance Scrutiny

As social media platforms remain a primary marketing channel, TTB and state regulators have signaled continued oversight of alcohol advertising claims. Claims about health benefits, alcohol content, and sourcing are being scrutinized more closely. Brands that collaborate with influencers or run digital campaigns need to ensure all content meets both federal and state advertising standards. For more information, see the Industry Circular 2024‑1: Use of Social Media in the Advertising of Alcohol Beverages. Beyond TTB guidance, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has increased scrutiny of influencer marketing, especially regarding health claims or misleading product representations.

6. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Market Consolidation

2025 saw continued consolidation in the spirits and wine sectors. Legal diligence in acquisitions, licensing transfers, and intellectual property rights became more critical than ever. Brands planning expansions or partnerships must ensure that all regulatory approvals and filings are up-to-date to avoid costly delays or enforcement issues.

7. Enforcement Trends

TTB has maintained an active enforcement posture in 2025, particularly around labeling, market compliance, and missing operational reports and/or excise tax filings. Brands are increasingly advised to maintain robust compliance programs and documentation to mitigate audit or enforcement risk.

Looking Ahead to 2026

As we move into 2026, brands should remain focused on compliance, digital readiness, and proactive legal planning. Early engagement with legal counsel can help mitigate risks in labeling, distribution, advertising, and direct-to-consumer sales, allowing brands to capitalize on growth opportunities while avoiding costly missteps.

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.