Three tier system, one unified anti-consumer front: Connecticut as a case study

Connecticut is currently hearing commentary on HB 7184, a bill which would introduce a number of pro-consumer provisions such as:

• Allowing Connecticut consumers to receive wine shipments from out-of-state wine stores, Internet retailers, wine-of-the-month clubs and wine auction house. Currently, Connecticut residents may only receive shipments from out-of-state wineries
• Permitting retailers to increase number of items discounted below cost simultaneously from one to ten
• Expands ability for retailers to use of coupons, online incentives, etc. to lower prices for consumers and price discriminate

However, to date nearly all testimony has been from large corporate retailers attempting to block the provision around out of state internet based shipments. One such example is Total Wine and More, who claim in their testimony that "Permitting out-of-state retailers to sell alcohol via the internet and ship it directly to Connecticut residents will make it extremely difficult for state law enforcement officials to properly ensure that alcohol stays out of the hands of underage persons", which is certainly not true because out of state wineries can already ship into Connecticut and no such underage issues have been reported. Other retailers have followed suit, piling on to try to keep the aspects of the bill most helpful to them while attacking many of the consumer friendly portions.

We cannot fault Total Wine for seeking protection from the government / attempting to lobby the bill to go in their favor, however it demonstrates an interesting side effect of the three tier system. The more that a company benefits from its position in the three tier system, the more likely that company is to lobby against consumer friendly protections. In essence, we have a regulatory framework that is not only bad for the consumer, but aligns the strongest stakeholders against the every day individual.