Total Wine Sues Connecticut, Charges State-Sponsored Price Fixing on Wine & Spirits (Bonuses: State-by-State Map, Court Complaint)

Total Wine & More has sued the State of Connecticut in U.S. District Court charging that the law which sets minimum prices on wine and spirits violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

 

Total Wines’s complaint alleges that consumers in Connecticut pay as must as 24% higher prices for the identical products sold in neighboring states. Total Wine & More does business in the state as Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits.

 

The lawsuit does not apply to beer which can be sold in grocery and convenience stores. Wine and spirits can only be purchased at liquor stores. Small liquor stores favor the current law because it keeps their profit margins high. Discounting, they say, would cause many small stores to go out of business.

 

According to the complaint (full document available at this link to premium subscribers):

 

“Total Wine & More has been prevented from offering the best prices by an anticompetitive regime of statutes and regulations that intentionally promotes horizontal and vertical price-fixing by Connecticut wholesalers of alcoholic beverages….”

….

“Connecticut manufacturers and wholesalers have used the challenged provisions
of Connecticut law to fix and maintain prices at levels substantially above what fair and ordinary
market forces would dictate. For example, wholesalers set bottle and case prices and share that
information with each other through the state-mandated posting system, and then consistently
coordinate their prices to match their competitors’ posted prices, resulting in horizontal pricefixing
at the wholesale level.”

….

“A recent study of the minimum bottle pricing regime in Connecticut, prepared on
behalf of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (“DISCUS”), concluded that this
regime, which is unique to Connecticut among all 50 states, resulted in retail prices for wine and
spirits in Connecticut that are as much as 24% higher than prices offered for identical products in
the surrounding states.”

….

“No agency or instrumentality of the state of Connecticut actively supervises the
posting, matching, and coordination of bottle and case prices among manufacturers and
wholesalers of alcoholic beverages. Instead, state agents, including the defendants, allow
manufacturers and wholesalers to utilize the challenged provisions to fix and maintain
anticompetitive retail prices”

….

“Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in plaintiffs favor and against
defendants:

“a. Declaring that the challenged provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes and
the Connecticut Administrative Code are void and of no force and effect;

“b. Enjoining continued enforcement of the challenged provisions;

“c. Awarding plaintiff its costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)
and/or other applicable law; and

“d. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just.”

Dispute background

The following articles offer details about the history of the dispute along with the local and state politics and personalities involved:

 

• Liquor Retailer Alleges Connecticut’s Minimum Bottle Law Violates Antitrust Rules
• Discount wine chain sues state over minimum liquor prices

 

Also related:

Here’s the latest state-by-state on what you can buy what you can buy in a grocery store.