HR-9767-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by W. Steube (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would allow craft distilleries — defined as independently owned producers making no more than 250,000 gallons of distilled spirits per year — to ship their products directly to consumers across state lines. Shipments would only be permitted if both the origin state and the destination state allow such direct shipping. The bill requires age verification at purchase, adult-signature delivery, and personal-use-only restrictions, and it allows state attorneys general to bring civil enforcement actions against violators under the existing Webb-Kenyon Act framework.
Who benefits
Craft distilleries, particularly small and rural producers who lack the distribution networks to reach national retail shelves. Consumers in states that permit receipt of such shipments, who would gain access to spirits not available through local retailers. Shipping and logistics companies that would handle increased alcohol shipments. Craft spirits tourism destinations, as online purchasing may increase brand awareness. Rural agricultural communities where small distilleries operate and provide local employment.
Who is hurt
Traditional alcohol distributors and wholesalers, whose role in the three-tier distribution system (producer → distributor → retailer) would be bypassed for qualifying craft shipments. Brick-and-mortar liquor retailers who compete with direct-to-consumer sales. Large distilled spirits producers, who are explicitly excluded from the bill's definition of "craft distillery" and cannot use this shipping pathway. Consumers in states that do not permit receipt of direct shipments, who would see no benefit. State and local governments that rely on distributor-collected excise taxes may face collection complexity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that craft distilleries face a structural disadvantage compared to large producers, who have the capital to secure national distribution deals, and that direct-to-consumer shipping is the only viable path to market for many small producers. They contend the bill mirrors the model already established for craft wineries under the Supreme Court's Granholm v. Heald (2005) ruling, which struck down discriminatory state shipping bans, and that extending similar access to craft distillers is a logical and equitable step. The bill's dual-state-consent requirement and age-verification provisions, they argue, preserve state authority and address underage access concerns.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill undermines the three-tier distribution system, which states have relied on since Prohibition's repeal to regulate alcohol, collect taxes, and prevent market consolidation. They contend that bypassing licensed distributors creates enforcement gaps — particularly for age verification at delivery — and that the bill's online affirmation standard for age verification is weaker than in-person ID checks. Critics also argue that the 250,000-gallon production cap and independent-ownership requirement create an arbitrary regulatory line that larger craft producers and their employees would fall on the wrong side of, and that tax collection on interstate shipments remains an unresolved compliance burden for small producers.