Malkin Law, P.A. Malkin Law, P.A. 2026-11-14T02:17:05Z https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1504913/2023/01/cropped-Malkin-site-icon-c-32x32.png On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[FDA labeling laws explained for “non-alcoholic” vs. “alcohol-free” drinks]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50978 2026-11-14T02:14:58Z 2026-11-14T01:01:14Z What does alcohol free vs. non-alcoholic mean? The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes federal rules for labeling malt beverages. These are fermented drinks made with hops and malted barley. The rules distinguish between two terms:
  • Alcohol free: The drink must contain no alcohol (0.0% ABV).
  • Non-alcoholic: The drink may contain traces of alcohol, but its ABV must stay below 0.5%.
Federal regulations also require a clear statement next to "non-alcoholic" found on malt beverage labels: "contains less than 0.5% alcohol by volume." The text must be easy to read and stand out from the background. These requirements do not apply to every zero-proof drink, as many ready-to-drink mocktails fall under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling rules instead. The applicable regulations depend on your product's ingredients and classification.

What information must your beverage label include?

Copying traditional beer or liquor labels can cause you to overlook FDA requirements, since many zero-proof drinks are regulated as food. These products may need labeling details that alcoholic beverages do not. For drinks covered by FDA rules, labels generally need the following details, unless an exemption applies:
  • A Nutrition Facts panel in the required format
  • An ingredient list, from the most to the least by weight
  • The drink's name or official food name (statement of identity)
  • The net quantity of contents
  • The name and address of the maker, packer or distributor
You must also list major food allergens, such as milk or soy, when present. Some Florida small businesses may not need a Nutrition Facts panel, but they must still follow other label rules.

Why review your label before printing?

An incorrect alcohol-content claim, missing ingredient list or improperly formatted panel can lead to fines, costly packaging changes or product recalls. Before you send your labels to print, Malkin Law can review the artwork, alcohol-content claims, ingredient lists and layout for possible violations of state and federal rules. This review can help you address labeling errors before they affect your product launch.]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[Texas SB 25: What the Food-Warning Label Law Actually Requires, and Why a Federal Court Just Blocked It]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50943 2026-10-05T14:40:35Z 2026-10-05T03:40:49Z The deadline and the label SB 25 took effect September 1, 2025, but the operative requirement, the warning label, applies only to a food product label developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027. The mandated language is specific. Flagged products must carry a statement to the effect of: "WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom." The statute requires the warning to be placed in a prominent, reasonably visible location and to have sufficiently high contrast with its background to ensure it is likely to be seen and understood under customary conditions of purchase and use. The law identifies 44 named ingredients, including synthetic dyes (such as Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6), bleached and bromated flour, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, partially hydrogenated oil, titanium dioxide, and a range of other additives and preservatives. If your formulation includes any of them, the warning obligation is potentially in play.

The exemptions that could save you

SB 25 is broad, but not unlimited. It carves out several categories: ingredients used in products not intended for human consumption, food labeled, prepared, or served in restaurants, food labeled, prepared, or served in retail establishments, products regulated by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, products already bearing a U.S. surgeon general's warning, drugs and dietary supplements, and pesticides and other agricultural chemicals used in producing, storing, or transporting raw agricultural commodities. There is also an important federal off-ramp. The statute's preemption provision turns off the warning requirement for a given ingredient once the FDA or USDA prohibits its use, imposes conditions on its use (including requiring its own warning or disclosure), determines it is safe for human consumption, or issues a labeling rule for ultra-processed or processed foods. In a fast-moving federal regulatory environment, that provision matters, and it operates ingredient by ingredient, not law-wide. The statute does not create a private cause of action. Enforcement runs through the Texas Attorney General, who may sue to enjoin a violation and seek a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per day for each distinct food product found in violation, plus reimbursement of the state's investigation and enforcement costs.

The law is already enjoined

This is the detail that has changed the compliance calculus: the warning requirement is not currently enforceable and has not been since February 2026. In late 2025, four trade groups, the American Beverage Association, the Consumer Brands Association, the National Confectioners Association, and FMI, the Food Industry Association, sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), challenging the warning-label mandate (codified as Section 9 of SB 25, now Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 431.0815–431.0817). On February 11, 2026, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing the warning requirement against the plaintiffs and their members. The court's reasoning:
  • First Amendment: the court found the warning is a content-based compelled-speech requirement likely subject to strict scrutiny and that Texas failed to show it was narrowly tailored even under the more lenient Central Hudson intermediate-scrutiny test. The court credited Texas's substantial interest in public health but found the state had not shown why a mandated, government-scripted label, rather than, for example, its own public information campaign, was necessary to advance that interest.
  • Vagueness: the court declined to find the law's preemption trigger language unconstitutionally vague at this early stage, though it left the door open to revisit the issue with a fuller record at summary judgment.
  • Preemption: the court was not persuaded, at this stage, that the warning is preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. It expressly declined to decide whether the warning's language is false or misleading, so that underlying question remains open.
The injunction currently runs in favor of the named plaintiff associations and their members. It is a preliminary ruling, not a final judgment, and Texas can be expected to appeal or to continue litigating toward a final resolution. Coverage of this case should be treated as a snapshot, not an endpoint; the posture can change quickly.

What to do now

Don't let the injunction cause you to stand down entirely. Label and packaging changes take months of lead time, the underlying statute has not been struck down, and the deadline is tied to when your labels are created, meaning decisions made in 2026 are already implicated if the injunction is narrowed, reversed on appeal, or the case ultimately resolves in the state's favor. Start by auditing your formulations against the 44-ingredient list to see whether you're affected at all. Many brands discover they can sidestep the warning entirely with a targeted reformulation. Next, check whether an exemption applies; the restaurant, retail, USDA, and drug/supplement carve-outs remove a meaningful slice of products. Then model multiple scenarios: comply with the label as written, reformulate to avoid the list, or hold position while monitoring the litigation. Finally, track both the federal preemption triggers and the case docket, since either a federal action on a specific ingredient or a ruling on appeal could change your obligations with little notice. SB 25 is the first of what will likely be many state warning-label laws, and its court fight is being watched closely as a bellwether for how far states can go in mandating food-safety disclosures. Getting your Texas strategy right now, including understanding exactly where the litigation stands, sets the template for the ones that follow. Not sure whether SB 25 applies to your products, whether an exemption gets you off the hook, or how the injunction affects your timeline? [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] can audit your labels against the statute, track the litigation, and map your options. Contact Us]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[From Concept to Shelf: Legal Steps to Launch an Alcohol Beverage Brand]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50941 2026-10-01T13:51:30Z 2026-10-01T13:51:30Z Step 1: Determine your product category and regulatory home Everything downstream depends on getting your product classification right at the outset. Once a beverage crosses the 0.5% ABV threshold, or falls within a category specifically subject to the jurisdiction of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), such as malt beverages containing malted barley and hops, the regulatory picture becomes complex. Products at or above 0.5% ABV are generally subject to TTB jurisdiction and, where applicable, state alcohol control laws. Classification also determines which set of federal rules applies to your product – wine, malt beverage, or distilled spirits – each of which carries its own permitting, formula, labeling, and tax treatment. Getting this classification wrong means building your entire brand structure on an incorrect foundation, and correcting it later can be expensive and time-consuming.

Step 2: Obtain your federal TTB authorization

To receive proceeds from the sale of alcohol in the U.S., brands must obtain a TTB Federal Basic Permit. There are several types, depending on role: producer permits for wineries, breweries, and distilled spirits plants; wholesale permits for businesses selling beverage alcohol to other wholesalers or retailers; and import permits for anyone wishing to import beverage alcohol into the U.S. for distribution. There is no fee at the federal level to apply for or maintain approval to operate TTB-regulated alcohol businesses. The TTB's Permits Online system allows for electronic filing, which is recommended over paper submissions. All owner-officers with 10% or more equity must complete personal questionnaires, and prior felony or certain misdemeanor convictions can be disqualifying under federal regulations.

Step 3: Formula approval

Many alcohol products require a formula submission to the TTB before label approval can proceed, particularly those containing ingredients beyond a standard base. The TTB requires that all ingredients added to an alcoholic product be determined to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in alcohol specifically. If the TTB finds that a product's ingredient is not GRAS, it can cause significant delays for your product's market launch. An ingredient approved for use in general food products does not automatically qualify for use in alcoholic beverages. The TTB coordinates with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on ingredient safety, and submissions involving novel botanicals, adaptogens, or functional ingredients frequently require additional documentation. Discovering a GRAS problem after submitting a formula, or worse, after beginning production, can set a launch back by months.

Step 4: Label approval (COLA)

A Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) from the TTB is required before most alcohol products can be shipped in interstate commerce. Whether you are launching a craft spirit, wine, or malt beverage, the TTB requires that your product's label comply with federal rules. From health warnings and alcohol content to font size and artwork, every detail matters. To apply for label approval, producers or importers submit the corresponding form using the COLAs Online portal, uploading high-resolution images of each label panel and specifying the alcohol type, container size, and applicable labeling information. There is no fee for submitting a COLA, but the application must be accurate and complete to avoid delays. The TTB publishes current processing times on its website, and these vary significantly by product category and time of year.

Step 5: State licensing

Federal authorization permits national operation, but it does not authorize you to sell a single bottle in any particular state. Every state operates differently, and requirements can vary significantly depending on where you are located. States commonly request a business plan, your federal TTB approvals, proof of zoning compliance, a floor plan, lease documents, financial statements, and background check results for all owners. States also control direct-to-consumer (DTC) shipping, and the rules differ dramatically: some permit wine DTC shipping with minimal restrictions; others prohibit it entirely. Spirits DTC remains restricted in most states. Brands should analyze their target markets before assuming any particular distribution channel is available.

Step 6: Distributor agreements

Once state licenses are secured, licensed distributors must be engaged in each market. You do not always need final TTB approval before starting the state process, so check with your state alcohol beverage control (ABC) board early to run both applications in parallel where possible. Key provisions to negotiate include territorial scope, termination rights, and what happens to inventory in the event of a dispute. Many states also have franchise laws that make distributor relationships difficult to exit once established, so the terms you agree to at the outset can bind your brand for years. Negotiating these agreements carefully, with counsel who understands the applicable state's franchise protections, is one of the most consequential steps in the entire process.

Step 7: Ongoing compliance obligations

Obtaining licenses and approvals is the beginning of compliance obligations, not the end. The TTB has maintained an active enforcement posture, particularly around labeling, market compliance, and missing operational reports or excise tax filings. Brands are increasingly advised to maintain robust compliance programs and documentation to mitigate audit or enforcement risk. Ongoing obligations include federal excise tax filings and payments; TTB operational reports; state excise tax filings; label and formula updates when products are reformulated; advertising review before major campaigns; and annual license renewals in many states.

The timeline

A realistic timeline for a new domestic alcohol brand, from initial TTB filing to first legal sale across multiple states, is typically six to twelve months, sometimes longer for products requiring formula approval. The most common and costly mistake is treating legal compliance as a final step rather than a foundational one. Regulatory requirements should shape product formulation, label design, brand naming, and distribution strategy from day one.

Planning a THC or CBD beverage instead?

Cannabis beverages sit in an entirely separate, and rapidly changing, legal framework that does not run through the TTB. [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-3"], guides alcohol beverage brands through every stage of the launch process, from TTB permitting and formula approval to label review, state licensing, distributor agreements, and ongoing compliance.]]> by Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[Why “All-Natural” Could Cost You Millions: Label Claims That Attract Class Actions]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50939 2026-09-29T08:56:22Z 2026-09-29T08:56:22Z Few phrases sell food like "all-natural." And few phrases have generated more class-action litigation. The reason is a gap at the heart of food law: the FDA has never adopted a binding definition of "natural." Into that vacuum have stepped the plaintiffs' lawyers, who have built an entire practice area around the argument that a "natural" label is misleading. If your packaging leans on purity claims, you're standing in one of the most active litigation zones in the industry. The FDA's only real guidance is an informal, decades-old policy: it doesn't object to "natural" in foods that contain nothing artificial or synthetic that wouldn't normally be expected to be there. That's it, no regulation, no clear test, and almost nothing on how processing affects the claim. That ambiguity is the whole game. Plaintiffs argue that even ingredients derived from natural sources become "synthetic" or "artificial" once they're manufactured through industrial processes, so a "natural" front label clashes with the reality on the back label. The single most common flashpoint is citric acid. Most commercial citric acid isn't squeezed from citrus, it's produced by fermenting a mold, Aspergillus niger. Plaintiffs seize on that to argue "all-natural" is false when citric acid appears in the ingredients. The courts, though, increasingly expect proof: in a 2025 decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Vineyard v. La Terra Fina, the court dismissed a citric-acid claim because the plaintiff's allegations that the specific citric acid used was synthetic were conclusory and speculative, not tied to facts about how that ingredient was actually sourced or made. Other frequent targets include xanthan gum and additives where the front-label promise and the back-label ingredient list appear to conflict. The theory keeps expanding. In the spirits world, "100% agave" tequila claims have drawn a wave of suits using carbon-isotope lab testing to allege the product contains ethanol from other sugar sources, not just agave. One such case, Haschemie v. Cinco Spirits Group, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in August 2025. Similar suits are pending against other major tequila brands on the same testing theory, suggesting this is a developing litigation front rather than a one-off. Major brands aren't immune generally: even well-known snack labels have faced "all-natural" class actions. The lesson from the case law isn't "never say natural." It's "don't make an absolute claim you can't back up." A few disciplines dramatically reduce your exposure. Avoid unqualified absolutes unless you can fully substantiate them. "All-natural" and "100%" are the phrasings plaintiffs love most because they leave no room for nuance. Where possible, use qualified, accurate language, "made with real [ingredient]," "no artificial colors or flavors", that says something specific and true rather than something sweeping and vulnerable. Reconcile your front and back labels. A huge share of these suits are built on the simple gap between a purity claim on the front and a chemical-sounding ingredient on the back. Read your label the way a plaintiff's lawyer will. Document your sourcing. If you claim natural, keep the supplier documentation, specifications, and any third-party certifications that show why the claim is accurate. In the citric-acid cases, proof of how the ingredient was actually made can be the difference between dismissal and a settlement. Audit regularly and act fast on demand letters. These cases often begin with a lawyer's letter probing for weakness. A prompt, well-advised response, backed by substantiation you already have on file, changes the dynamic. "Natural" isn't going to be defined by the FDA any time soon, which means it will keep being defined, case by case, by litigation. The brands that treat every purity claim as something they might have to prove in court are the ones that rarely end up there. Using "natural," "clean," or "pure" claims and want them to hold up? Malkin Law can audit your labels and substantiation before a demand letter arrives. Contact Us (https://calendly.com/malkinlaw)]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[Is Your Product Still Legal in Every State? The 2026 Food Dye Ban Map]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50930 2026-09-11T21:48:55Z 2026-09-11T21:48:37Z How We Got Here California moved first. Its 2023 Food Safety Act banned four substances, Red Dye No. 3, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, and propylparaben, effective January 1, 2027. A follow-up law then targeted synthetic dyes in public schools, requiring the removal of Red 40, Yellow 5 and 6, Blue 1 and 2, and Green 3 from school food by the end of 2027. Then, in March 2025, West Virginia went further, enacting what has been described as the nation's first broad ban on synthetic dyes. Its law reaches Red 40 and Red 3, Yellow 5 and 6, Blue 1 and 2, Green 3, and preservatives like BHA and propylparaben. Schools had to comply by August 2025; the statewide retail ban is set for January 1, 2028, though that provision was preliminarily enjoined by a federal court in December 2025 while litigation proceeds (see "Litigation Is Already Reshaping the Map" below). Since then, activity has exploded. More than twenty states have introduced dye or additive legislation, and industry trackers have counted well over a hundred related bills in a single session. Utah restricted artificial dyes in public schools; Arizona prohibited ultraprocessed foods in school programs through House Bill 2164; Texas and Louisiana passed sweeping warning-label laws requiring disclosure on packaging for foods containing listed additives.

The Trap: School Rules vs. Retail Rules

One of the most common, and costly, mistakes is treating all these laws as the same. They are not. Many statutes draw a sharp line between two very different obligations. School-nutrition restrictions apply only to food sold or served in K–12 school settings and often carry earlier deadlines. Retail bans apply to any product sold in the state and usually phase in later. A brand that reformulated only for school channels may still be selling a non-compliant product on grocery shelves. Effective dates are staggered on purpose, which means “compliant today” does not mean “compliant next year.” California’s additive ban lands in 2027; West Virginia’s retail ban is slated for 2028, pending the outcome of litigation; school deadlines in several states have already arrived.

Litigation Is Already Reshaping the Map

These laws are being tested in court, and the outcomes matter for your planning. The most significant development so far: a federal district court in West Virginia issued a preliminary injunction on December 23, 2025, blocking enforcement of that state’s statewide retail ban while the case proceeds. The court found the law’s “poisonous and injurious” language likely unconstitutionally vague. The school provision was not enjoined and remains in force. Texas’s warning-label law has also faced legal challenges. Industry groups have challenged several statutes on constitutional grounds, arguing that federal food-labeling law preempts a state-by-state approach, and that some provisions are unconstitutionally vague. The practical takeaway is that the map is not fixed. A ban on the books today could be paused, narrowed, or upheld tomorrow, and brands need a strategy that can flex either way.

What Your Brand Should Do Now

Actionable steps for your brand:
  • Build a live compliance map. Track every state where you sell, every dye or additive in your portfolio, and every effective date. This is a spreadsheet you update monthly, not once a year.
  • Decide your reformulation strategy deliberately. Many national brands are choosing to reformulate to the strictest common denominator so they can keep a single SKU. That is simpler operationally but not always cheaper or better for taste and shelf life. It is a business decision with legal consequences, make it on purpose, not by default.
  • Separate your school and retail channels in your compliance analysis so you don’t accidentally leave a retail product exposed.
  • Watch the litigation. Because these laws are being actively challenged, the smart move is to prepare for compliance while preserving flexibility, rather than betting everything on a single outcome.
The dye map will keep changing through 2026 and beyond. If you sell in more than one state, you need a system to keep up, and counsel who can read each statute’s fine print before it costs you a recall or a penalty. Selling across state lines and unsure which dye rules apply to your products? Malkin Law’s Food & Consumer Goods team helps brands map their exposure and build a compliance plan. Contact Us    ]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[Do I Need FDA Registration to Sell a Non-Alcoholic Drink?]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50897 2026-08-25T17:37:38Z 2026-08-25T17:36:00Z You have the recipe, the bottles and a launch date. What you may not have is the paperwork the federal government expects before your first sale. This article explains how FDA registration and Florida permits can apply to your beverage business.

What does federal law treats as "food"?

The FDA defines food to include drinks and their components. Non-alcoholic beverages fall under the same registration rules as packaged food. Facility registration requirements appear in the federal food regulations at 21 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart H. If you manufacture, process, pack or hold beverages for people in the U.S., your facility may need to register. Registration through the FDA Industry Systems portal carries no fee. You may need to renew it every two years. Missing that renewal window could leave your registration inactive.

Why is a business license is not enough for the non-alcoholic drink industry?

Forming an LLC does not satisfy federal food safety law. A local health permit does not replace facility registration either. Regulators can still expect you to follow Current Good Manufacturing Practices. Those practices cover sanitation, equipment design, employee hygiene and record keeping. Juice products may fall under separate hazard analysis rules. Shelf-stable acidified drinks can carry their own process filing duties. Ignoring these standards could expose you to recalls or enforcement action.

Florida permits to review for non-alcoholic drinks

Florida adds a state layer for non-alcoholic drinks through the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Your permit type may depend on how you sell:
  • Wholesale or manufactured food permit: For making, bottling or warehousing drinks sold to other businesses.
  • Retail food establishment permit: For selling directly to customers in a shop or cafe.
  • Plan review before applying: An optional step that can flag construction problems early.
Each permit path can involve an inspection of your facility before approval.

Where this leaves your first batch

Federal registration, good manufacturing standards and a Florida permit tend to work together rather than replace each other. Getting the order right can protect your launch date and your first production run. You can review a regulatory compliance overview to see how these approvals connect. If your product type or ownership structure raises questions, an attorney can help you weigh your options.]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[The Great Reshuffling: What the RNDC Collapse Means for Suppliers Across the Distribution Tier]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50782 2026-06-05T15:50:55Z 2026-06-05T15:50:55Z How We Got Here: RNDC's Accelerating Exit RNDC's troubles did not materialize overnight. The first crack appeared in early 2023 when Sazerac terminated its long-standing partnership with RNDC after the distributor allegedly defaulted on $38.6 million in invoices. That dispute proved to be a harbinger of much larger problems. The real avalanche began in early 2025 when Tito's Handmade Vodka, one of the country's best-selling spirits, moved its California business from RNDC to Reyes Beverage Group. The defection triggered a cascade effect. High Noon, Cutwater, and other major brands followed. By June 2025, RNDC announced a complete withdrawal from California, a market that had generated approximately $2 billion in annual sales, laying off its entire California workforce in September 2025. The shakeout then accelerated dramatically in 2026. What began as a seven-state conversation between RNDC and Reyes Beverage Group in January 2026 grew into a confirmed eleven-market transaction by March, encompassing Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. That deal, representing roughly $6 billion in RNDC revenue, is on track to close by the end of May 2026. And the deals kept coming. In April 2026, RNDC signed letters of intent with Martignetti Companies to exit its control state operations, including Alabama, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, as well as brokerage arrangements in Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Virginia. Separately, Columbia Distributing signed a letter of intent to acquire RNDC's Oregon and Washington markets and establish an asset arrangement in Alaska. RNDC is also evaluating its Plains States business, reportedly in advanced discussions with an unnamed buyer covering the Dakotas, Colorado, and Texas (the latter already earmarked for Reyes). Its joint ventures in New York (with Opici Family Distributing), Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan are each under review. The RNDC-Opici New York joint venture has agreed to sell distribution rights to Manhattan Beer & Beverage. Put simply: RNDC, once operating across 38 states, is in the process of divesting essentially its entire national footprint. 

What This Means for Suppliers: Legal Rights and Risks During a Change of Distributor

For suppliers, from global spirits brands to small regional producers, the RNDC collapse raises urgent questions about their legal rights when a distributor relationship changes hands involuntarily or through acquisition. The answer depends heavily on state law and the specific terms of each distribution agreement.

The Three-Tier System as the Legal Foundation

The United States regulates beverage alcohol through a three-tier system, suppliers, distributors, and retailers, a structure rooted in the 21st Amendment's grant of power to individual states to regulate alcohol within their borders. The middle tier, the distributor, is not merely a logistical intermediary. In many states, once a supplier appoints a distributor, the relationship is governed by franchise laws that fundamentally alter the supplier's ability to exit that relationship.

Franchise Laws: The Distributor's Shield

More than twenty states have enacted franchise laws that protect beverage alcohol distributors from termination by suppliers. These laws, which exist for malt beverages, wine, and spirits (in varying combinations by state), generally require that a supplier demonstrate "good cause" before terminating a distribution agreement. Good cause has been narrowly defined by state courts and regulatory agencies, making it difficult to terminate even a chronically underperforming distributor. Franchise law obligations don't just apply to the original distributor. They frequently transfer to a successor distributor. In the context of the RNDC transactions, this is a critical point: a supplier's existing franchise obligations may follow the brand from RNDC to Reyes, Martignetti, Columbia, or whomever acquires the distribution rights. The successor distributor generally steps into the shoes of the predecessor, inheriting the franchise protections the prior distributor held under state law. The implications are significant. A supplier that was unhappy with RNDC's service or performance may not have a clean escape route simply because a new entity is taking over. In most franchise states, that supplier will need good cause to terminate the incoming distributor as well.

The 'Successor Manufacturer' Exception: A Limited Window

A handful of states provide a limited window for a "successor" supplier to reassemble its distribution network following a brand acquisition. Ohio, for example, permits a successor manufacturer to terminate a distributor without cause within 90 days of acquiring a brand, provided the distributor is compensated for the value of the distribution rights lost. But as litigation in Ohio and other states has demonstrated, courts have construed these exceptions narrowly and refused to extend them beyond their precise statutory scope. In the current RNDC situation, the question is somewhat reversed: it is the distributor, not the supplier, that is voluntarily exiting markets. While this creates different legal dynamics than a traditional forced termination, suppliers should not assume they are automatically free to redirect their brands. Depending on the state, the distribution rights and associated franchise protections may transfer contractually or by operation of law to the acquiring distributor.

Notice, Approval, and Compensation Requirements

Depending on the state, a change in distributor ownership or assignment of distribution rights may trigger additional legal obligations:
  • Notice requirements. Some states require formal written notice to the supplier, often by certified mail, before distribution rights may be assigned or transferred.
  • State agency approval. Certain states require regulatory approval before a termination or transfer of distribution rights becomes effective.
  • Inventory repurchase obligations. Suppliers in some states may be required to repurchase a departing distributor's inventory at fair market value.
  • Compensation for distribution rights. Some states require suppliers to compensate distributors for the value of distribution rights terminated. The penalties for non-compliance can be severe, in North Carolina, for example, improper termination can result in permit suspension and financial penalties up to $35,000.

Practical Considerations for Affected Brands

Whether you are a national spirits importer, a regional winery, or an emerging craft brand, the RNDC shakeout likely affects your distribution chain in one or more markets. Here is what brands should be doing right now:

1. Audit Your Distribution Agreements State by State

The first priority is understanding exactly what your current distribution agreements say about assignment, change of control, and termination. 2. Identify Which States Have Applicable Franchise Laws Franchise laws vary significantly by state and by product category (malt, wine, spirits). A brand distributed by RNDC in Florida, Maryland, or Virginia may have substantially different legal obligations than the same brand operating in Texas or Colorado. This analysis must be done on a market-by-market basis, accounting for both the applicable state statute and any contractual terms that may modify the default legal framework.

3. Engage Early with Incoming Distributors

Reyes Beverage Group, Martignetti, Columbia Distributing, and the other acquirers are likely managing hundreds of supplier relationships simultaneously across newly acquired territories. Brands that are proactive, reaching out early, establishing contact with the right people, and documenting their service expectations, will be better positioned than those who wait for the new distributor to come to them.

4. Understand the Risks Before Attempting to Self-Help

Some suppliers, frustrated with RNDC's service decline or eager to join a different distributor's portfolio, may be tempted to treat the transition as an opportunity to unilaterally move their brands. This approach carries serious legal risk. In franchise law states, unilateral termination without good cause, even in the middle of a distributor's collapse, can result in litigation, injunctions halting your ability to ship product, permit revocation, and significant monetary damages.

5. Document Service Failures Now

If RNDC's service has deteriorated in your markets, missed deliveries, declining sales force coverage, failure to meet contractual performance targets, document it now. In franchise states, good cause for termination typically requires demonstrating material breaches of the distribution agreement.

The Bigger Picture: A Consolidating Middle Tier

The RNDC situation is dramatic in its speed and scale, but it is part of a longer-running consolidation trend in the distribution tier. According to Impact Databank, total U.S. distributor revenues for wine and spirits are expected to slip approximately 1% this year to roughly $70 billion, a subdued backdrop against which the remaining large distributors are competing intensely for business. Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits retains its position as the dominant national player. But the rise of Reyes Beverage Group signals a meaningful shift in who holds leverage in the middle tier. The franchise law framework, designed in an era when distributor fragmentation was the norm, was not necessarily built with this level of consolidation in mind. Beverage alcohol law is inherently state-specific, and the intersection of franchise law, contract rights, and regulatory requirements demands careful analysis across every market you operate in. Now is the time to conduct that analysis, understand your rights, and engage counsel familiar with the three-tier system, before the window for strategic action closes.]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[5 mistakes to avoid in Florida cannabis licensing applications and renewals]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50707 2026-08-25T13:23:48Z 2026-06-04T18:57:46Z Getting a cannabis license in Florida is one of the most demanding things a business owner can take on. The state holds cannabis operators to a very high standard, and there is very little room for error when applying or renewing. One mistake can delay your application, put your license at risk or shut your operation down entirely. Knowing where people most commonly go wrong could save you a great deal of time, money and frustration.

Mistake 1: Incomplete or inaccurate disclosures

Florida requires you to be fully transparent about your business, who owns it and where the money comes from. Leaving out information, even by accident, can raise concerns with regulators and lead to an immediate denial.

Mistake 2: Failing to clear background check requirements

Every key person involved in a cannabis business typically goes through a thorough background check. A criminal record, financial issues or unresolved legal matters tied to any owner or officer can put the whole application in jeopardy.

Mistake 3: Overlooking local zoning approvals

Getting state approval does not automatically mean your business can operate at a specific location. Zoning rules vary widely across Florida cities and counties, and skipping this step before submitting your application can stop the process in its tracks.

Mistake 4: Missing renewal deadlines

Florida regulators enforce cannabis license renewal deadlines strictly and do not offer much flexibility. Missing a deadline — even by a short window — can force you to pause operations while you work through the compliance process again.

Mistake 5: Failing to report structural business changes

Adding a new investor, swapping out a board member or changing your ownership structure without telling the state could trigger a sudden license suspension. Florida expects operators to report significant business changes promptly and in the proper manner.

How [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] helps cannabis operators get it right

Trying to navigate the licensing process on your own leaves too much room for mistakes that are hard to undo. These are the areas where Florida cannabis businesses need legal support:
  • Having every document go thorough review to make sure it meets Florida's compliance requirements before it goes out the door.
  • Keeping track of renewal deadlines and regulatory updates on your behalf so you can stay focused on running your business.
  • Handling business structural changes and the required notifications to keep your license protected.
Your cannabis license represents a serious investment of time, money and effort. Making sure every step of the application and renewal process is handled correctly from the start is the best way to protect everything you have built.]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[TTB Labeling Requirements: What Alcohol Brands Keep Getting Wrong]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50784 2026-03-12T16:05:09Z 2026-03-12T16:05:09Z Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) before products can be sold or distributed in interstate commerce. Yet labeling mistakes remain one of the most common compliance issues for alcohol brands, especially startups entering the beverage alcohol market. From Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) errors to misleading health claims and improper ingredient disclosures, even small mistakes can lead to rejected applications, costly delays or enforcement action. Below, we break down the most common labeling compliance mistakes we see and how alcohol brands can avoid them.

Failing to Secure Proper TTB Label Approval (COLA)

Most alcoholic beverages sold in the United States require a Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) issued by the TTB before they can enter interstate commerce. The COLA process requires producers or importers to submit their proposed label through the TTB’s online system for review. The TTB evaluates whether the label:
  • Contains all required information
  • Avoids misleading or prohibited statements
  • Complies with federal labeling regulations
These requirements stem from the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and are implemented through regulations, including:
  • 27 CFR Part 4 – Wine
  • 27 CFR Part 5 – Distilled spirits
  • 27 CFR Part 7 – Malt beverages
A valid COLA ensures that mandatory information appears on the label such as:
  • Brand name
  • Class or type of alcohol
  • Alcohol content
  • Net contents
  • Bottler or importer information
  • Government health warning statement
However, brands often assume that COLA approval is a simple administrative step. In reality, the TTB scrutinizes submissions carefully and may reject labels for technical errors, misleading claims or missing disclosures. Common COLA mistakes include:
  • Incorrect class or type designation
  • Improper alcohol content statements
  • Missing mandatory statements
  • Claims that imply health or therapeutic benefits
A rejected COLA can delay a product launch by weeks or even months.

Missing or Improper Mandatory Label Information

Alcohol labels must include specific information that allows regulators and consumers to clearly identify the product. For distilled spirits, required elements typically include:
  • Brand name
  • Class or type designation (e.g., vodka, whiskey)
  • Alcohol content
  • Net contents
  • Name and address of producer or importer
  • Health warning statement
  • Country of origin for imported products
TTB guidance also requires additional disclosures depending on the product formulation, including:
  • Age statements (when applicable)
  • Neutral spirits disclosures
  • Commodity statements
  • Certain ingredient disclosures
Failure to properly include these elements is one of the most common reasons labels are rejected during review.

Improper Ingredient or Additive Disclosures

Alcohol labeling rules around ingredients can be confusing because ingredient lists are generally not required for alcoholic beverages. However, specific additives must be disclosed when present. For example, distilled spirits labels must identify certain color additives if used in the product, including:
  • FD&C Yellow No. 5
  • Cochineal extract
  • Carmine
When these ingredients are present, the label must include a disclosure such as: “Contains FD&C Yellow No. 5.” These statements must also meet formatting requirements for size, legibility and placement on the label. Brands that use botanical blends, flavorings or specialty ingredients often overlook these rules, particularly in categories like:
  • RTDs
  • Flavored spirits
  • Hard seltzers
  • Botanical or herbal liqueurs
When a product contains certain ingredients or processes, TTB formula approval may also be required prior to label submission, which involves providing a full ingredient list and production process.

Incorrect or Missing Health Warning Statements

Under the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act (ABLA), most alcoholic beverages containing .5% alcohol by volume or more must include the mandatory government health warning statement. The required statement reads: GOVERNMENT WARNING:
  1. According to the surgeon general, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects.
  2. Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems.
The TTB enforces strict formatting rules for this warning:
  • The words “GOVERNMENT WARNING” must appear in bold capital letters.
  • The warning must appear separate from other label information.
  • Minimum type sizes are required depending on container size.
  • The text must appear on a contrasting background and be readily legible.
Brands frequently run into compliance issues when:
  • The warning text is modified.
  • Font size is too small.
  • Placement makes it difficult to read.
  • Additional warnings are added that conflict with federal requirements.

Misleading Health, Wellness or Nutritional Claims

Another area of increasing regulatory attention is health-related marketing claims on alcohol labels. The TTB generally prohibits statements that suggest alcohol provides health, therapeutic or nutritional benefits. Additionally, alcoholic beverages are not required to include nutrition facts labels, but if a brand chooses to include calorie or carbohydrate information, the information must be truthful and accompanied by a full statement including calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat per serving. Problematic claims may include statements implying that a beverage is:
  • Healthy
  • Low-carb without supporting information
  • Functional or wellness-enhancing
  • A safer alternative to alcohol
Even seemingly minor claims can trigger additional regulatory scrutiny.

Increased Enforcement and Scrutiny

TTB enforcement has increasingly focused on misleading claims, inaccurate classifications and incomplete disclosures. Violations can lead to:
  • COLA revocations
  • Product recalls
  • Civil penalties
  • Delays in product launches
  • Permit risks for producers and importers
Because labeling sits at the intersection of marketing, compliance and consumer protection, regulators continue to treat it as a priority enforcement area. For alcohol brands entering the market or expanding into new product categories like RTDs or THC-adjacent beverages, proper compliance planning is critical.

How Alcohol Brands Can Avoid Labeling Issues

Alcohol companies can significantly reduce risk by implementing a structured compliance process before launching new products. Best practices include:
  • Conducting a pre-COLA compliance review
  • Confirming whether formula approval is required
  • Verifying mandatory label elements
  • Reviewing ingredient disclosures
  • Vetting marketing claims for regulatory compliance
Working with experienced regulatory counsel early in the product development process can prevent costly corrections later.

Key Takeaways

Alcohol label compliance is often underestimated, but mistakes can delay launches and expose brands to enforcement risks. The most common issues include:
  • Failing to obtain or properly complete COLA approval
  • Missing mandatory label elements
  • Improper ingredient or additive disclosures
  • Incorrect health warning formatting
  • Misleading health or nutritional claims
As regulatory scrutiny increases across the beverage alcohol industry, brands should treat labeling compliance as a core part of product development, not an afterthought.

FAQs About TTB Alcohol Labeling

Do all alcohol products require a COLA?

Most distilled spirits, wines over 7% ABV and malt beverages require a Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) before they can be sold in interstate commerce.

Are ingredient lists required on alcohol labels?

Generally, no. However, certain additives, such as FD&C Yellow No. 5, cochineal extract or carmine, must be specifically disclosed if present.

Are nutrition facts labels required for alcohol?

No. Alcoholic beverages are not required to display a nutrition facts panel. However, if a brand includes calorie or carbohydrate claims, additional information must be provided to avoid misleading consumers.

Can alcohol labels include health or wellness claims?

Generally, no. The TTB prohibits statements suggesting that alcohol provides health, therapeutic or nutritional benefits.

What happens if a label violates TTB rules?

Potential consequences include COLA rejection, product recalls, fines or enforcement actions.]]> On Behalf of Malkin Law, P.A. <![CDATA[The Ultimate Guide to Alcohol Beverage Licensing in the U.S.: Federal vs. State Licensing, Timelines and Common Compliance Pitfalls for Brands Entering the Market]]> https://www.malkinlawfirm.com/?p=50785 2026-03-12T16:02:58Z 2026-03-12T16:02:58Z two regulatory layers: federal permits (through the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau – TTB) and state licenses under individual Alcohol Beverage Control authorities. This guide walks you through both the timelines you should expect and the compliance pitfalls that can derail your launch.

Workflow: Federal → State Licensing

  1. Determine your business activities (producer, wholesaler, importer and retailer)
  2. File and receive your federal permit(s) through TTB before doing business
  3. Obtain state licenses/permits for every state you plan to operate in
  4. Maintain ongoing compliance with federal and state rules

Step 1 – Federal Licensing with TTB

What Federal Permits Are Required

Any entity that manufactures, imports or distributes alcohol in the U.S. must qualify and obtain permits from the TTB under the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act:
  • Producer (Basic Permit) – For wineries, distilleries and beverage production
  • Wholesaler Permit – For wholesale distribution to retailers
  • Importer Permit – For commercial importation of foreign beverage alcohol
  • Dealer Registration – For wholesale and retail dealers to be registered with TTB
These permits authorize your core business activities and are required before you begin operations.

How to Apply

Applications are filed online through TTB Permits Online, where you’ll enter business information, ownership, premises plans and supporting documents. There is no federal filing fee for these permits, though additional costs like bonds may apply for producers.

Typical Timelines

Federal approvals often take several months, and timelines can vary by permit type and completeness of documentation. Tip: Finalize your entity details and accounts in TTB systems before filing to avoid delays.

Step 2 – State Licensing Requirements

Why State Licenses Matter

Federal permitting does not authorize sales or operations in any individual state. Each state has its own Alcohol Beverage Control agency and licensing regime that governs:
  • Manufacturing/processing
  • Distribution licenses
  • Retail licenses (bars, restaurants and stores)
  • Oftentimes, storage and transport permits
Authority and requirements vary widely; some states regulate through a license system, while others operate a control system where the state is the exclusive wholesaler.

State Licensing Basics

For example, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has multiple license types for wholesalers and manufacturers. Other states have a more one-permit-by-function (e.g., manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers) approach. Best practice: Research the ABC agency rules for every state where you plan to operate; licensing fees, application forms and compliance documentation can differ significantly.

Timelines & Sequencing

  • Federal permits: Expect several months from application to issuance
  • State licenses: Can take weeks to months, depending on the jurisdiction
  • Sequencing matters: Most states require proof of federal permits before state licenses will be issued
  • Priority planning: Align your launch timeline with both federal and state processing timelines

Common Compliance Pitfalls

Here are frequent compliance challenges brands encounter:

Filing Out of Order

Attempting state licensing or sales before federal permits are approved is a guaranteed roadblock. Federal authority always comes first.

Misunderstanding License Types

Failing to clearly define whether you need a producer, wholesaler, importer or retailer license leads to incorrect applications and rejections.

State Variations Overlooked

Assuming one state’s rules apply nationally can lead to compliance gaps; each state is its own regulator of alcohol licenses.

Bonding Requirements Ignored

Some permit applications (especially for producers) require bonds tied to federal excise tax liabilities, which can be a surprise if not anticipated.

What to Prepare Before You File

Before clicking “submit,” make sure you have:
  • Business entity and federal tax ID (EIN)
  • Premises diagrams and operational plans
  • Ownership/management information
  • Completed bond and financial disclosures (if required)
  • List of products and production plans
  • Understanding of each state’s license requirements
]]>