I agree with this distinction. As you note, there are areas of the law where hobby vs for-profit might make a difference. When I said it didn’t make a difference “for purposes of the issues under discussion,” I meant only for purposes of whether a lawful purchaser of a product would need the seller’s or manufacturer’s permission to publish a review.
1 Like
Yes, Jeff as usual you know everything.
1 Like
Some excellent perspective and good points.
It will be interesting to see if these five producers maintain their stance going forward. In reading the article, part of me was thinking this was just a decision affecting this particular vintage.
Most people reviewing wines are receiving samples to do so from the wineries or their distributors.
Once you submit a sample, you live with the outcome.
How do I know they are receiving free samples? Willamette Valley Wineries Association has a list of hundreds of media opportunities. The cost of purchasing wines to sample regularly is not insignificant, and many, many wineries are happy to donate wines to be reviewed knowing the outcome may be negative. Most businesses won’t spend money that they don’t need to
If there’s a You-tube reviewer out there buying his wines, then they are the exception not the rule.
Bloggers don’t hit my radar(no offense intended), but most are sent more than enough samples to keep them busy (see Alder Yarrow’s well thought out directions regarding sending him samples for example).
Participating in critical review needs to keep the credibility of the reviewer untarnished. But you shouldn’t have wines reviewed you don’t submit.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and I wouldn’t call my lawyer over 99% of it. Rusty Gaffney has reviewed several of my wines without ever receiving a sample. I wouldn’t think of asking him to stop. Prince of Pinot was about as authentic as it gets, he’s thorough, and characterizes the wines well enough that I have no issue with his reviews accuracy.
The issue with the First Growths is different. They expressed as a group that they do not want to participate in having their wines reviewed in the current format. Right or wrong, that should be respected.
Awesome…
But, why? If it is wrong of them to expect to not be reviewed, then why should it be respected?
Libel is very specific. You must prove intent and harm. This is the law as it is written. Look it up.
Reviews are protected speech under the First Amendment . Movies die. Plays stop running. Restaurants close all the time due to bad reviews. And yes, wines can have a hard time selling.
That is all in the game in the USA.
In France, the law is different. There was a famous case in the early 200s when Beaujolais producers sued a French magazine for saying Beaujolais wineries made “Shit Wine.”
The producers won in court.
But that is not our system as Free Speech, for better or worse, is sacrosanct in American life.
Did you, or why didn’t you sue Neal Martin or The Wine Advocate after he gave you a scathing review?
When Robert Parker started out, he bought wines locally and reviewed them. Given the policy of the NY Times on reviewing plays and movies (their critics buy their tickets) and the fact that Asimov explicitly says the he reviews wines–when he does, with his panel–based on their availability in the New York marketplace, I expect that he or the Times buys the wines he reviews. There must be countless other examples. I’m not a lawyer, but given the common practice of reviewing and the fact that an opinion can’t be libel, good luck on suing.
1 Like
They are not saying they should not be reviewed. What they are saying that they are not going through the hoops that Wine Spectator protocols insist on for their blind tasting. This applies ONLY to the en primeur campaign. Obviously when the wine is in bottle, they can buy the wines (except Latour) and subject them to blind tasting.
That’s an individual determination.
For me, loyalty means a lot. So I will submit wines for Josh Reynolds whenever he asks. He’s sees the wines very clearly and stands behind them as they are. To me, those reviews have elevated the wines to Vinous readers, and I should honor the arrangement regardless of whether we need the review or not.
Others could very fairly make a different determination.
Because I submitted the wines.
I was much less educated about reviews and reviewers at the time. I lacked awareness as to just how unprofessional the process could get due to the workload reviewers are under. Neal helped educate me on this considerably.
I also wouldn’t have sued because his reviews didn’t actually slow sales much. The 2012 Whistling Ridge Pinot Noir was, and is, a very good wine. While giving it the lowest score of the vintage review for Oregon, 82 points, from a critic knowing wines below 86 could definitely cause harm to sales may not be intent(?). It definitely is something a critic knows is likely to cause harm. And he obviously is a PROFESSIONAL reviewer, so he should also be aware that his negative commentary could lead to financial harm for producers, and avoid commentary on a region he was uneducated/inexperienced regarding, in an abysmal tasting format. Please note that he did excuse himself from covering Oregon for WA after two years citing that he couldn’t cover the region well enough with his schedule…two years too late but still the honorable thing to do.
And again-bad reviews are just bad reviews. Reviewing a product someone has expressed a desire not to be reviewed is different.
btw-next years Berserker Auction item for Goodfellow can be, “A 2012 tasting of Goodfellow wines rated 82-86 by Neal Martin, with special guest Jeff Leve.”
We can open it up to a dinner for 10 and have some fun.
5 Likes
You would be stunned to learn, there are first growth buyers reading Wine Spectator.
They collectively decided not to give free wine to a wine publication? I may not be a lawyer, but there is nothing even remotely close to illegal sounding about that.
2 Likes
The argument here is that they collectively decided to withhold their product from someone attempting to judge it based on quality, assuming they were worried the quality was below average. By withholding their product, they were able to drive up/maintain current prices. Not saying that is what is happening, but what they were getting on about, which could be illegal.
Also not a lawyer.
1 Like
Great post.
BTW, All the first growths don’t participate in the UGC Tour either. Just saying.
I don’t think anyone is arguing whether or not a winery should participate in a tasting, but whether or not the reviewer has the right to source their wine independently and review it.
2020 was a stellar year.
They all got great scores in all the other publication.
There is no devil in anything they did. They sent a rightful message to Wine Spectator.
Some times you need to stand up to the bully in the yard, and they did.
1 Like
I understand, I am merely just trying to explain the argument of how someone could argue the legality/ethics of what they did. It could very easily be argued as anti-consumer.
1 Like
Many examples of what could be a violation of the competition/antitrust laws are surprising, even to many lawyers.
2 Likes