4 ms·

As many others have pointed out, this stunt is almost certainly illegal. In addition to the obvious violations of Federal law, state and local laws were probabl

As many others have pointed out, this stunt is almost certainly illegal. In addition to the obvious violations of Federal law, state and local laws were probably violated as well. This is not a matter of "failing to comply with regulations." This is a matter of operating a Distilled Spirits Plant without a license. Regarding labels, all labels are subject to approval by the TTB. (Not ATF. TTB, or more fully, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, was split off from what is now ATFE, in the Homeland Security re-organization of 2003.) Simply to submit a label for approval, you must have a Federal Basic Permit, along with various other federal approvals. Even if you're simply a "rectifier" (someone who blends and bottles, with no distilling) you need state and local permits as well. Labels generally have to be registered on the state level as well. This varies by state, but usually involves submitting your COLA (TTB certificate of label approval) to the relevant state agency and paying a fee. There are also standards of fill and alcohol content, although that's kind of irrelevant, as the operation was illegal from the get-go. As others note, the labels themselves probably weren't compliant with applicable law, (CFR 27) although again, that's also beside the point. For those curious, download the TTB's "Beverage Alcohol Manual, Volume 2, Distilled Spirits." It explains all the requirements. There's a learning curve. Even if you follow all the rules, your label may get sent back for revisions. I have yet to get one through on the first try. Even if you give spirits away, some states have laws regarding advance notification of the state alcohol authority. You might also need to have bartenders with "responsible vendor" certification pouring the drinks. Of course, you have to be licensed to submit this notification, although some jurisdictions allow for unlicensed parties to obtain "special event" permits. In summary, OP most likely broke a bunch of laws. On the bright side, they will probably get away with it, as the TTB is overworked and probably won't bother with something this penny-ante. A more likely danger is the state alcohol agency. My advice? Don't pull this kind of stunt again. If you really must, work with a licensed DSP (distilled spirits plant). Source: I'm a distiller.

bhickey 13y ago
On what scale do you distill? I don't see mention of it on your gallery page. A few years back I'd looked into importing spirits from central Asia only to conclude that it was much too capital intensive: overland transport, hazardous cargo shipping, import duties, a bonded warehouse, not to mention the risk of local labor unrest and temperance organizations.
- gallerytungsten 13y ago
  Fully licensed distillery. http://ateliervie.com http://ateliervie.com
  - omegant 13y ago
    Very interesting, are u using destillation column, or traditional equipment?
derefr 13y ago
> My advice? Don't pull this kind of stunt again. If you really must, [do it the longer, proper way and run out of time]. In my opinion, if this isn't the advice you receive in response to everything you do as a startup, you aren't hustling enough.
- eridius 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure you don't want your advice to be "you just broke a bunch of federal, state, and local laws".
  - derefr 13y ago
    It's funny how clearly this entire comments page shows the schism between the consequentialist/aesthete "hacker" mode of thinking people here operate with on their own (I recall the MIT Lockpicking Guide being upvoted here every time it was posted, after all), and the liability-focused "business" kind of thinking people switch into as soon as they've got a product or service to hawk. Laws, in the end, are just legal levers people can use--if they feel impinged-upon, and see no more personal recourse--to seek justice. At scale, you don't have personal relationships with your customers, so you have to obey every letter of every law. Before then, though--when you're small, and when you know each customer well-enough that you could call them friends--those customers have other ways to seek justice for things you do to them. Like, say, complaining to you. This case is very similar to another I remember reading about on HN: an "extremely exclusive restaurant" in New York, which is not only invitation-only, but whose location is a well-protected secret. Why is it a secret? Because the "location" is an apartment! No restaurant license; just a "retired" five-star chef, cooking for you out of his own house. Completely illegal--all sorts of regulations are being broken--but much-beloved by all involved. This is the kind of thing you can do when you have personal relationships with your customers. This is what you do that gets customers to love you--and can bootstrap into a big, legitimate business if you want. This is what people mean by "hustling", but everyone is afraid to say. It's going out on a real limb--not just sacrificing your own financial nest-egg, but giving your customers the ability to blackmail you or put you in jail if they decide they really don't like you. But this is what makes magic happen. (Note that I'm totally not advocating the other kind of "hustling", the one done by grey-hat SEO "growth hackers." If you're a small, scrappy startup breaking laws that protect people from bad businesses in their service, and to earn their gratitude, then you'll likely be okay; but if you're breaking laws to "achieve growth" but earning people's spite in the process (you know, those "people who weren't gonna be your customers anyway, so screw 'em"), then please don't follow my advice. Don't go out on any limbs. Stay well inside, where we won't have to deal with you.)
snowwrestler 13y ago
This is a great illustration of regulatory capture: immense regulatory complexity that obstructs even the most innocuous giveaway program, thereby protecting the incumbent companies who have already invested the time and money to cope with it. And yes, I know that these regulations exist to protect consumer safety from bad actors, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Well-intended regulations and regulatory capture are not mutually exclusive concepts.
- omegant 13y ago
  I think that those laws are there not to protect the busines of destillers but the huge business that drinkable alcohol sales means to the government. They want to milk every aspect of the process. I don't know if it is "difficult" to obtain such licenses, I suspect it is just expensive.
- joshAg 13y ago
  how is that regulatory capture? I can see over regulation, maybe, but what did any of that have to do with the regulating agency doing the bidding of those its regulating instead of acting for the public good?
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    The best clue it is regulatory capture is that despite the regulations obviously being so burdensome and slow, an incumbent business is supportively enumerating them rather than complaining about them. Why? Because the barrier to competitors is more valuable to them than the burden of the regulations.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    Regulatory capture refers to the effect, not the motivation. Even if done with the best of intentions (and even at the protest of the industry), regulation almost always has the effect of increasing barrier to entry, therefore causing regulatory capture if there is enough of it.
sneak 13y ago
> Don't pull this kind of stunt again. This isn't a stunt, this is harmless. Only those with Stockholm Syndrome w/r/t the regulators see this as anything other than harmless. (Regrettably, this may include prosecutors.) But seriously, this just ain't a big fuckin' deal.
- weisser 13y ago
  While the stunt is illegal (in many ways) and there was a likelihood of getting into serious trouble I'd say the "big fuckin' deal" is bragging about it with the plan to get lots of attention on HN. That's even more reckless than the actual stunt.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  This isn't harmless. It puts them at risk of expensive legal prosecution if the ATF decides to pursue this matter.

bhickey 13y ago

On what scale do you distill? I don't see mention of it on your gallery page. A few years back I'd looked into importing spirits from central Asia only to conclude that it was much too capital intensive: overland transport, hazardous cargo shipping, import duties, a bonded warehouse, not to mention the risk of local labor unrest and temperance organizations.

gallerytungsten 13y ago
Fully licensed distillery. http://ateliervie.com http://ateliervie.com
- omegant 13y ago
  Very interesting, are u using destillation column, or traditional equipment?

derefr 13y ago

> My advice? Don't pull this kind of stunt again. If you really must, [do it the longer, proper way and run out of time]. In my opinion, if this isn't the advice you receive in response to everything you do as a startup, you aren't hustling enough.

eridius 13y ago
I'm pretty sure you don't want your advice to be "you just broke a bunch of federal, state, and local laws".
- derefr 13y ago
  It's funny how clearly this entire comments page shows the schism between the consequentialist/aesthete "hacker" mode of thinking people here operate with on their own (I recall the MIT Lockpicking Guide being upvoted here every time it was posted, after all), and the liability-focused "business" kind of thinking people switch into as soon as they've got a product or service to hawk. Laws, in the end, are just legal levers people can use--if they feel impinged-upon, and see no more personal recourse--to seek justice. At scale, you don't have personal relationships with your customers, so you have to obey every letter of every law. Before then, though--when you're small, and when you know each customer well-enough that you could call them friends--those customers have other ways to seek justice for things you do to them. Like, say, complaining to you. This case is very similar to another I remember reading about on HN: an "extremely exclusive restaurant" in New York, which is not only invitation-only, but whose location is a well-protected secret. Why is it a secret? Because the "location" is an apartment! No restaurant license; just a "retired" five-star chef, cooking for you out of his own house. Completely illegal--all sorts of regulations are being broken--but much-beloved by all involved. This is the kind of thing you can do when you have personal relationships with your customers. This is what you do that gets customers to love you--and can bootstrap into a big, legitimate business if you want. This is what people mean by "hustling", but everyone is afraid to say. It's going out on a real limb--not just sacrificing your own financial nest-egg, but giving your customers the ability to blackmail you or put you in jail if they decide they really don't like you. But this is what makes magic happen. (Note that I'm totally not advocating the other kind of "hustling", the one done by grey-hat SEO "growth hackers." If you're a small, scrappy startup breaking laws that protect people from bad businesses in their service, and to earn their gratitude, then you'll likely be okay; but if you're breaking laws to "achieve growth" but earning people's spite in the process (you know, those "people who weren't gonna be your customers anyway, so screw 'em"), then please don't follow my advice. Don't go out on any limbs. Stay well inside, where we won't have to deal with you.)

snowwrestler 13y ago

This is a great illustration of regulatory capture: immense regulatory complexity that obstructs even the most innocuous giveaway program, thereby protecting the incumbent companies who have already invested the time and money to cope with it. And yes, I know that these regulations exist to protect consumer safety from bad actors, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Well-intended regulations and regulatory capture are not mutually exclusive concepts.

omegant 13y ago
I think that those laws are there not to protect the busines of destillers but the huge business that drinkable alcohol sales means to the government. They want to milk every aspect of the process. I don't know if it is "difficult" to obtain such licenses, I suspect it is just expensive.
joshAg 13y ago
how is that regulatory capture? I can see over regulation, maybe, but what did any of that have to do with the regulating agency doing the bidding of those its regulating instead of acting for the public good?
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  The best clue it is regulatory capture is that despite the regulations obviously being so burdensome and slow, an incumbent business is supportively enumerating them rather than complaining about them. Why? Because the barrier to competitors is more valuable to them than the burden of the regulations.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  Regulatory capture refers to the effect, not the motivation. Even if done with the best of intentions (and even at the protest of the industry), regulation almost always has the effect of increasing barrier to entry, therefore causing regulatory capture if there is enough of it.

sneak 13y ago

> Don't pull this kind of stunt again. This isn't a stunt, this is harmless. Only those with Stockholm Syndrome w/r/t the regulators see this as anything other than harmless. (Regrettably, this may include prosecutors.) But seriously, this just ain't a big fuckin' deal.

weisser 13y ago
While the stunt is illegal (in many ways) and there was a likelihood of getting into serious trouble I'd say the "big fuckin' deal" is bragging about it with the plan to get lots of attention on HN. That's even more reckless than the actual stunt.
gizmo686 13y ago
This isn't harmless. It puts them at risk of expensive legal prosecution if the ATF decides to pursue this matter.