Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Wow, so many problems with this. As others have mentioned your label likely doesn't conform to federal standards. Also, you can't just give away alcohol from what I understand, there are permits and procedures that need to be followed. The fact you "manufactured" alcohol without a permit is a huge one as well. Even though you were only relabelling, I'm sure there is some tax you have to pay.

You don't want to mess with the ATF. They are notorious for bringing down the hammer. Let's hope they don't go to their trust method of "Always Think Forfeiture"

View on HN

There are indeed laws relating to proper labeling of food and alcohol that you sell. They're not selling it.

There are indeed laws that prohibit people who manufacture alcohol from also being the ones who sell it to consumers. They're not selling it.

You can label things any damn way you want to label them, if you're not selling them. If you want to go home tonight and print out a label that says "Vinegar", and paste it on your Vodka bottle, I promise you won't be breaking any laws. If you then give that Vodka to your friend, you're still not breaking any laws, provided your friend is an adult.

The level of hysterical paranoia by other posters in this thread is confusing.

I agree, there are so many responses in this thread that make me feel like the blog post didn't adequately convey that the vodka was being given away—and not being resold by anyone at any point. It was a gift to event hosts who were throwing private events.

It wasn't being given away. It was being bartered/traded.

"in exchange for hosting a party on Speakeasy for our launch weekend"

i think the fact that they're using it in a commercial manner, even if they're not strictly selling it, would at least raise some eyebrows at the ATF.

imagine if someone dies from the vodka. who's liable for it?

Can I sell cans of Redbull for $20 and give "Vineger" for free as a bonus sampler?

But the venues receiving the vodka are most definitely selling it, proven by the fact that it ended up included in bottle service.

If it was a donation to an individual, you could get away with ignoring the rules, but they're giving vodka away to businesses, knowing that the business likely intends on selling it.

I think it's OK.

There's already a ton of businesses who sell custom wine labels for you to use to relabel your own wine. The main customers of these companies are businesses who use them as gifts to their customers, as a form of marketing/advertising.

Crucial distinction: "gifts."

Wine is regulated differently.

I would like to reiterate that these were all house and loft parties - our events product was all about underground events.

> There are indeed laws relating to proper labeling of food and alcohol that you sell. They're not selling it.

> There are indeed laws that prohibit people who manufacture alcohol from also being the ones who sell it to consumers. They're not selling it.

They are offering it "in exchange for hosting a party on Speakeasy". Offering a product as in-kind exchange for something else of value very often is legally considered "selling" the product.

There are also laws prohibiting bottling alcohol by anyone other than the (properly licensed) manufacturer of the alcohol without a permit, and they were bottling it (and weren't the manufacturer).

If we ignore the fact that they are "trading in-kind" the vodka for services, they are still distributing it.

There are a multitude of laws governing alcohol. I had a friend host a party with a cover. He was giving away the alcohol. The local alcohol control board showed up and listed the numerous laws he was violating.

Don't forget that anyone who distributes alcohol has to be permitted. They need to comply with laws that govern access to the underaged, tracking of alcohol taxes, etc.

Here is an example from Missouri law:

When is a liquor license required? It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, distribute or sell intoxicating liquor without a state license issued by the state supervisor of the Division Alcohol and Tobacco Control. However, Section 311.055 is an exception, which allows 200 gallons to be manufactured per household, per calendar year if there are two or more persons over 21 years of age in the household, or 100 gallons per calendar year if there is one person over the age of 21 in the household. The products manufactured under the Section 311.055 exception are only for personal and family use.

Does that permit private distilling? I thought having a still with intent was still illegal throughout the US.

Depends on the state. Some allow it, some don't.

Missouri is the only state with the type of exception cited. Even so, Federal law makes home distilling illegal in all states.

http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml#s7

What exactly did they actually (in an objective sense) do wrong though?

If the only thing they did wrong was "failing to comply with regulations", then maybe those regulations are wrong. The same way that googling certain terms isn't wrong, putting labels on bottles of liquid isn't wrong. And, if someone comes to your door with guns in their hand because of this, then they're in the wrong - not you.

> You don't want to mess with the ATF. They are notorious for bringing down the hammer.

Wow, the tone people use to describe these various gov't agencies just keep making them sound more and more like common gangsters...

You won't get an argument from me that various federal agencies are riding the line of "gangsters".

However wrong these agencies might be, the OP has to face the consequences. My guess is the ATF might knock on his door and give him a lesson on alcohol regulations, nothing more, but at least he should be aware of what the potential consequences are.

> If the only thing they did wrong was "failing to comply with regulations", then maybe those regulations are wrong.

Tell that to a judge. You sound like you are 14 years old. If you run a business, you should follow the laws of the nation the best you can since employees, investors, partners, and customers all depend on you.

Like Uber doesn't? Obeying a dumb law might make your position more stable, but it eliminates the enormous potential return on choosing to behave outside the norm.

Laws are just incentive structures, and subject to the same risk analysis as everything else.

> putting labels on bottles of liquid isn't wrong.

That's naive, it most certainly can be wrong and in this case it was. Alcohol regulations exist to protect the consumer and violating them is most definitely wrong.

> You don't want to mess with the ATF.

Or state ABC authorities. If nothing else, liquor licensing is a pretty important revenue stream, and if nothing else (and there certainly is more) that's a pretty big motivation to not cut a lot of slack, especially for highly publicized violations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com