Retailers such as WTSO or even those in NY, NJ, etc., all know that they cannot ship to places like IL. So, if MI gets added to the list, you won’t need to let them know.
You misunderstand I think, I mean that Michigan residents should boycott Michigan retailers, because buying from them is giving your money to the distributers who cut you off.
Stagecoach is not a wine retailer. They temporairly take posession of your property and then ship it to you on your own behalf. Neither Vinfolio nor Stagecoach sold you the wine.
Beer will be a problem. There are many beers that I can only order online and I don’t believe Vinfolio or Domaine will store or forward beer. That’s a shame. If anyone knows of a Vinfolio like service for beer please let us know!
I would think though you could use an Illinois celler service for wines purchased in Illinois, as there are many Illinois retailers who ship (or at least try to ship) country wide.
Look at us! This is exactly the kind of BS I would expect when states interfere with a free running market.
Can’t ship to Illinois? Go to Kinko.
Don’t like what the state is doing with its regulation?
Punish your local retailer.
Want some wine from California?
Spend the money for double shipping and store at Vinfolio.
This is just ludicrous!
I have nothing against my local retailer, but the fact is, if this law passes and I buy from them, I am supporting the state distributor that cut me off. The way I see it, it is the distributor that is punishing both local retailers AND consumers. And this actually holds true even without boycotting, because IMHO online wine shopping spurs local shopping. Distributors see total control (basically legalized racketeering) as more important than anything else, which is short sighted, arrogant, and stupid.
If there is a wine I really want as a collector, Vinfolio is an option under this new law. I’m glad it’s there as a fallback resource, despite the extra expense. I think they do a great job.
Boycotting the local retailers may seem as if it will indirectly punish distributors but I suspect it is unlikely to have any noticeable effect. Those of us who buy across state lines make up too small a percentage of sales.
Which makes one wonder… if that’s true, why would distributors spend all the time, effort, and dollars to lobby the state to create such anti-shipping law?
Thanks. Actually I just meant what are Illinois residents doing.
Good question, and honestly my post was based on a total guess. Perhaps fear of giving the first inch? Not unusual in competitive circumstances even if there’s no realistic likelihood of a slippery slope.
I’m starting to see a trend as well. Recent order from a national retailer was to go to TX-no, cease and desist. So Fedex to a MD Fedex print and ship center which I’ve used many times in the past; no, has to be UPS to my house (so someone has to be home). At least I have an option but this isn’t good news
The Michigan Anti-Shipping Bill was signed by the governor and will become law.
NAWR will determine whether to sue, push new legislation, or both.
Thanks to everyone who reached out the governor or friends to help kill the bill.
Tom Wark…
When is this set to take place?
I suppose now it is time to get a storage locker in Chicago…
Why a locker in Chicago? Can’t ship to Illinois either.
Dear God! Indiana?
OMG, the stupidity of these jackasses. This is the perfect case to take to the SCOTUS. It discriminates against out of state retailers, the same issue that cost them the Granholm decision.
Nobody ever said politicians are smart, but this is one of the dumber laws enacted, and is a relatively easy target.
Agree that they are stupid, but they are all heavily greased I’m sure.
I am no lawyer, but when I read this is looks like it took effect immediately. Is that the case? If so, I am glad I live close enough to the Indiana border!
Isn’t Indiana already quite a restrictive shipping state?