This will just make it even harder for Cali wines to compete, particularly at the lower price tiers. Sure, at the cult-level California wines have really done well. But I find that Cali wines fare poorly at several lower price levels. Fifty cents extra per bottle just makes them even less competitive. I don’t see how that can be good for the state.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=PRNI2&STORY=/www/story/04-20-2009/0005009156&EDATE=

If an industry is doing well state and federal governments, particularly CA government, see an opportunity to skim the till. The wine industry generates approximately $52B for the CA economy but its time to pay up. Fascinating! What a ruse. I am sure $1.84B will be used efficiently and effectively for the people of CA. Can you say boondoggle?

More importantly doesn’t this movement toward bureaucratic fascism scare the hell out of everyone? This is a pox that can be attributed to both political houses. For all those that dismissed the TEA Party protestors as angry, white, ignorant and paranoid, you clearly missed the point. Yes we all pay too much tax. Worse government is intruding further into our lives on a daily basis. Worse still, we just elected a President and further empowered a legislative branch that clearly admires European style social engineering exemplified by this issue.

Perhaps there’s an additional degree of risk for those who are retailers who hawk their wares via a blog (or vlog). Gary V, I’m lookin’ at you.

But again, does one wine put consumers at more of a risk of … something… than another? I don’t see it. If there’s an argument about wine in general, then an entire industry (publishing, blogs, stores) is at risk. But particular wines are a matter of taste. I don’t see the FTC enforcing tastes.

And even if you’ve got a true liability argument to make, how would you be able to identify where a wine recommendation came from? A blog, a mag, a store? Except for the most obscure products, it would be hard to narrow down the source of a consumer’s interest in a product.

And if someone benefits from a recommendation, are bloggers eligible for a cut of the profits, or would they only be liable on the downside?

This entire idea strikes me as unenforceable.

I wonder how this “developing” law would change podcasts? I am thinking of on a particular one that is actually a video and I am certain the wines discusssed are offered for sale at his store. To be honest I wouldn’t mind if they eliminated all the blogging about wines that appears innocent but is actually being used as free advertising. I bolg for good conversation about wine,and topics being discussed in the industry. For the people who are getting paid to host blogs they should be paid to to just that host a great blog that drives traffic to the particular site so the site can charge for advertising on the site. Although as wines are mentioned by hosts in reviewes of a region in a particular vintage I have no idea how anyone could filter whether or not the host is being paid to mention the wines or not. Good topic!

Kevin