Internet Wine Retailer Loses License When Fed Ex Delivers to Underage Purchaser — Massachusetts
A Massachusetts ???sting??? operation against Wine.com, conducted via the Internet, results in the prohibited sale and delivery of wine to an underage purchaser ??? and the suspension of Wine.com???s license to sell alcohol in the Commonwealth.
Wine.com sells wine via Internet sales directly to consumers throughout the country. In Massachusetts, it does so through a subsidiary, eVineyard Retail Sales ??? Massachusetts, Inc. An underage decoy, cooperating with the Massachusetts Attorney General???s office, ordered wine from Wine.com through an Internet site, first having opened an account in her own name with a fictitious date of birth. In doing so, she agreed to the terms of service, which stated that wine will not be sold or delivered to persons under the age of twenty-one years.
The wine order was processed by eVineyard, and delivered to the underage purchaser by Federal Express. In its contract, Federal Express agreed to deliver wine to customers, but also (for an extra fee of two dollars per delivery) to check identification and verify age of the recipient. Federal Express delivered the wine in this case without asking for identification or proof of age.
The Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission suspended eVineyard???s license for the sale of the wine for five days, and suspended Federal Express???s license to deliver wine for three days. eVineyards appealed.
The state???s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, ruled on March 18 that eVineyard was responsible for both the sale and the delivery. eVineyard Retail Sales-Massachusetts, Inc. v. Alcoholic Berages Control Commission, SJC-09948, March 18, 2008. Delegating the task of delivery to Federal Express did not shield the seller from exposure for its violation of committing a sale to a minor.
The Court specifically observed that it ???would be presented with a very different situation??? if Federal Express had asked for and reasonably relied on any of the forms of identification permitted by the statute (which it admittedly did not do). The Court also observed ???we see no reason why [protection from liability by relying on permitted forms of id] would not ordinarily extend to the Internet seller???.???
