Main /
Main /
main /
Main /
Sep 15
Sep 23
Sep 30
September 17, 2026
September 24, 2026
Oct 4
CLIENT ALERT
August 20, 2026
Read time: 6 min
July brought several significant federal and state developments that could reshape alcohol industry competition, pricing practices, distribution structures, and cross-border trade. At the same time, Congress continues to consider sweeping legislation that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for hemp-derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) beverages. Together, these developments highlight evolving enforcement priorities, new compliance considerations, and potential structural changes that industry participants should monitor closely.
Several recent federal actions could have meaningful implications for alcohol industry pricing, distribution, competition, and international trade.
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Robinson-Patman Act litigation against Southern Glazer’s remains a closely watched enforcement matter. On June 22, 2026, the US District Court for the Central District of California stayed the case through August 6 (a stay that was subsequently extended to September 4 of this year) while the parties evaluate a potential resolution. Industry stakeholders are closely monitoring whether any settlement focuses on targeted issues, such as retailer notification requirements, scan rebates, or coupon distribution practices, or whether it signals a broader FTC effort to limit pricing and discounting programs that create disparities between retailers. A narrow settlement could require adjustments to specific promotional practices, while a broader, parity-focused approach could prompt manufacturers and distributors to reassess trade spending, pricing strategies, and discount programs across their businesses.
In a separate antitrust-related development, the US Department of Justice’s consent decree governing Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) expired following a 10-year term imposed in connection with the SABMiller acquisition. While ABI remains subject to federal antitrust laws, the expiration removes restrictions that previously limited certain distributor loyalty initiatives and capped distribution ownership interests. As a result, industry participants will be watching closely to see whether ABI pursues new loyalty programs, expands vertical integration efforts, or explores future merger and acquisition opportunities.
Cross-border trade also faces new uncertainty. On July 20, 2026, President Trump issued proclamations under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 imposing 50% tariffs on certain Canadian imports, including a broad range of alcoholic beverages. Effective August 19, the tariffs apply regardless of United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) eligibility and cover beer, wine, cider, sake, ethyl alcohol, brandy, and distilled spirits. The administration cited ongoing restrictions on US alcoholic beverages in most Canadian provinces and territories, as well as a significant decline in Canadian imports of US alcohol products, as justification for the action. Companies that import affected products should evaluate potential pricing, sourcing, and supply chain implications before the tariffs take effect.
Recent developments in Oregon and Michigan could affect supplier compliance obligations, packaging-related requirements, and brand rights administration.
In Oregon, industry attention remains focused on litigation challenging the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program. In National Association of Wholesale Distributors v. Feldon, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) submitted an amicus brief arguing that the program may violate the Commerce Clause and disproportionately burden wine and spirits suppliers by imposing higher costs on glass packaging relative to other packaging formats. The brief also raises concerns that exemptions for small producers largely benefit in-state suppliers. The outcome of the litigation could have implications not only for Oregon’s program but also for similar packaging and sustainability initiatives emerging in other states.
Michigan has enacted House Bill 4824, which includes new requirements for suppliers registering multi-branded products. Under the legislation, suppliers must designate the wholesaler or wholesalers that hold rights to the underlying brands included in the product. The law defines a multi-branded product as a beer, wine, mixed-wine, or mixed-spirit drink that incorporates two or more brands owned by different suppliers. Companies developing collaborative products or cross-brand offerings should review the new requirements to ensure proper brand-rights administration and wholesaler designation.
Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that could dramatically reshape the regulatory, distribution, and tax framework for hemp-derived consumer products, including THC-infused beverages.
The proposed Lawful Hemp Protection Act would establish a comprehensive federal framework governing cultivation, manufacturing, testing, labeling, and marketing of hemp-derived products. Among other changes, the legislation would prohibit synthetic cannabis ingredients, require hemp products sold in the United States to be domestically grown and packaged, restrict retail sales to consumers age 21 and older, and prohibit marketing directed at children. The bill would also increase the federal hemp threshold from 0.3% to 1% total THC on a dry-weight basis and repeal hemp-related restrictions enacted through the FY2026 appropriations process.
For hemp beverage producers, the legislation would create an alcohol-style regulatory structure that could significantly alter current business models. Key provisions include:
Recent developments underscore increasing regulatory activity across traditional alcohol and emerging hemp-derived beverage markets. Antitrust enforcement, trade policy changes, evolving state compliance requirements, and potential federal regulation of hemp beverages all have the potential to affect pricing, distribution, commercial practices, and long-term business strategy. Industry participants should continue monitoring these developments and assess whether existing compliance, distribution, and commercial arrangements remain aligned with the rapidly changing regulatory landscape.
Alva C. Mather
Partner
Washington, DC
Christine Dower
Counsel
Washington, DC
Michelle L. Draper
Senior Alcohol Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington
Ashley Braun, a compliance specialist in the New York office, contributed to this client alert.
Press release
McDermott Will & Schulte secures complete victory in landmark digital advertising tax challenge
US M&A activity: Remedies return, states press forward, and HSR form reverts
Global M&A trends: 6 notable Q2 2026 cases out of the US, EU, and UK
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott Will & Schulte via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott Will & Schulte from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott Will & Schulte to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott Will & Schulte cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott Will & Schulte has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott Will & Schulte have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.
Leave a Reply