This is important, and time is running out.  Craft breweries are getting crushed during the pandemic.  Many are hanging on by a government PPP string.  The Denver Post recently reported that at least 170 independent craft breweries closed during the first half of 2020.  The number is likely to be much larger at present.  Most of these small businesses are in a bad way.  The government needs to get off its rear to help out.

In 2017, Congress provided a temporary reduction in federal excise taxes on beer through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (specifically the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act (S. 362/H.R. 1175)).  What did these reductions mean?  It reduced the federal excise tax for breweries producing fewer than 2 million barrels annually from $7.50 to $3.50 per barrel for the first 60,000 barrels.  By the way, this grouping encompasses the vast majority of 8000+ independent craft breweries in the U.S.  It did some other stuff too, but those benefits were for gargantuan mega breweries and importers so not the focus here.  Especially during COVID and the serious decline in sales for independent breweries, this $4.00 savings per barrel is extremely important.

What’s the problem?  The Act is set to expire on December 31, 2020.  If Congress does not act, independent breweries (more than 2000 have opened since the Act went into effect) will see their taxes essentially double.  Really?  At a time like this?  Frankly, many independent breweries simply can’t take the hit and will have to close up shop.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t like beer.  I bet you like jobs.  According to the Brewers Association, craft beer provided 580,000 jobs in the US in 2019.  While that number has certainly shrunk since the 2019 stats came in.  We should all want to stop the bleeding of breweries and their half-million plus jobs.

And it’s not like it’s controversial.  The Beer Institute provides that the Act had largely bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House.  340 members of the House and nearly three quarters of the Senate to be specific.  We should push Congress to extend the Act to allow breweries to invest in their survival through COVID, to allow brewery employees to remain gainfully employed, and to allow us hangers on to drink their fine products.  If there has to be a fight about it, please, lawmakers, make it after the pandemic.  Now get to work.

Let your representatives know that you care about your local breweries and that you support extending the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act.  They’ll be too busy bickering, I’m sure.  But being heard is a start.

Cheers.  And let me know what you think.

“Mo Money Mo Problems:” How the Post-Mortem Right of Publicity Affects Craft Brewers

1. Introduction

I once went to a taproom with an array of eighty self-serve beer taps. It was initially difficult to pick a beer from the eighty options. But soon, one caught my eye: North Coast Brewing Company’s “Brother Thelonious Belgian Style Abbey Ale.” The beer cleverly invoked the name of legendary jazz pianist Thelonious Monk and prominently featured him on the label with a snifter of ale. Being a fan of Thelonious Monk, picking a beer became an easy choice.

A Nielsen Holdings study affirms my taproom experience, finding sixty-six percent of American craft beer buyers believe a beer’s label—instead of reputation or price—is “extremely” important for grabbing their attention. In a crowded market with limited shelf space, a standout label is a great way to distinguish the beer and promote sales. And what better way is there to bring in customers than putting a famous person on the label? The practice is astonishingly common; for example, a quick web search presents dozens of The Notorious B.I.G. inspired beers (e.g. Notorious H.O.P, Notorious P.O.G., Notorious B.I.G., Hoppy Smalls, Big Poppa).

But a brewer using the name and likeness of a deceased celebrity presents right of publicity issues that outweigh the commercial benefits. The right of publicity is the “right of a person whose identity has commercial value . . . to control the commercial use of that identity.” See Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 498 F.2d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir.1992). Celebrities have a property interest in their identities because their identities are “valuable in the promotion of products” and “unauthorized commercial exploitation” of their identities threatens their rights. White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). California has a common law version and a statutory version of the doctrine. The common law version does not survive death, but the statutory version applies post-mortem.

It is imperative that craft brewers understand the post-mortem right of publicity and tread lightly with deceased celebrity-based beer brands. When brewers ignore the right of publicity, they expose themselves to legal and financial costs associated with the misappropriation of a celebrity’s name and likeness. For example, North Coast Brewing Company recently had to settle for an undisclosed amount with Thelonious Monk, Jr. because it misappropriated the name and likeness of Thelonious Monk, Sr. on “Brother Thelonious” merchandise. Furthermore, if a brewer manages to defend their brand as a parody, other brewers are free to riff on the brand’s name and label. Guest Lecture with Mike Kanach, Intellectual Property Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully & Mansukhani (June 27, 2020). As a result, other brewers can capture the initial market advantage of the celebrity-based beer. While there are technically ways to avoid harm when using a celebrity’s name and likeness, the best practice is to not have a dead celebrity-based beer because the financial risks are significant.

The Right of Publicity: California Civil Code § 3334.1 and The First Amendment

California Civil Code § 3334.1 provides that users of a deceased personality’s name or likeness for commercial purposes without prior consent are liable to the holder of the decedent’s right of publicity for damages resulting from that unconsented use. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3334.1. However, there are defenses under the First Amendment to the right of publicity. See Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. 25 Cal. 4th 387, 405–07 (2001).

1. The Statutory Right of Publicity

California Civil Code § 3334.1 makes users of a “deceased personality[’s]” name or likeness on products, or in advertising or sales, liable for $750 or any damages the use causes—including lost profits—if they use the name or likeness without consent of the decedent’s estate. Cal. Civ. Code § 3334.1(a), (c). The injured party measures lost profits with the gross revenue attributable to the use of the personality. Cal. Civ. Code § 3334.1(a). The statute defines “deceased personality” as a person whose “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness has commercial value at the time of his or her death, or because of his or her death.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3334.1(h). The use of the decedent’s name or likeness must be “directly connected” to a commercial purpose. Cal. Civ. Code § 3334.1(k).

When a brewer uses a deceased personality on its beer’s label or brand name without consent from the decedent’s estate, it risks financial and legal costs from the misappropriation of the celebrity’s identity. For example, a brewer uses The Notorious B.I.G.’s name or likeness on it’s beer label or as the beer’s name without asking for permission from The Notorious B.I.G.’s estate which then sues the brewer under § 3334.1. These uses qualify as an unconsented use of Biggie’s personality that is directly connected to a commercial use because the name or likeness is on the product itself and promotes sale of the beer. The brewer would have to halt production and sales of the beer and may have to dump any remaining beer at the end of the lawsuit. Furthermore, a brewer using The Notorious B.I.G. on a beer’s label or brand name would cause his estate damages. The damages include gross revenue attributable to the use of The Notorious B.I.G.’s name or likeness and any noneconomic damages. The prevailing party receives attorney’s fees and costs, so if the brewer loses the case, it must pay these costs in addition to its own attorney’s fees. As a result, it is easy to see how a brewer could financially suffer through its unconsented use of a dead celebrity’s identity because lost profits, noneconomic damages, dumping the beer, attorney’s fees and costs add up to substantial sums of money. Most brewers in this scenario can only survive by settling the case, but even settlements can set brewers back considerably.

The Ninth Circuit has held that § 3334.1 only applies to people domiciled in California at the time of death. See Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 2002). In Cairns, an American mint produced coins with Princess Diana on them, and the Princess’s estate sued the mint under § 3334.1. Id. at 1144. The Court explained British law on the right of publicity applied instead of § 3334.1 because the right of publicity is a personal property right and California law makes personal property rights dependent on the law of the plaintiff’s domicile unless another law provides otherwise. Id. at 1149. Thus, Princess Diana’s estate could not recover damages because Great Britain—her domicile—did not recognize the post-mortem right. Id. at 1149. However, one court recently reframed the law, suggesting there is a claim under § 3334.1 if the decedent’s domicile at the time of death recognizes the post-mortem right of publicity. See Bravado Int’l Grp. Merchandising Servs. v. Gear Launch, Inc., 2018 WL 6017035, 9 (C.D. Cal. 2018).

Under Cairns, using a dead celebrity’s image is outside the scope of § 3334.1 if the celebrity’s domicile was not California when they died. Cairns, 292 F.3d at 1149. However, a celebrity’s estate may have a claim under the Bravadointerpretation of § 3334.1 if the celebrity’s domicile at the time of death offers a post-mortem right of publicity. See Bravado Int’l Grp. Merchandising Servs., 2018 WL 6017035 at 9. Continuing our Notorious B.I.G. example, New York law on the right of publicity would govern under Cairns, while § 3334.1 may apply under the more recent Bravado holding. Given the Bravado holding, a shift in the law is possible, so brewers must be careful when using a dead celebrity’s identity without consent even if they died domiciled outside of California. Otherwise, brewers expose themselves to liability and might divest themselves of their profits.

1. The First Amendment Defense

Brewers may avoid financial ruin under a First Amendment defense after using a dead celebrity’s personality for a beer brand or label without consent. Because the statute does not exempt beer brands or labels, celebrity-based beers may only receive protection as a parody. To qualify as a parody, the beer brand or label must contain “significant transformative elements” beyond celebrity likeness or its “value . . . [must] not derive primarily from the celebrity’s fame.” See Comedy III Productions, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th at 407 (2001).

“Transformative elements” hinge on whether the work “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” Comedy III Productions, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th at 404. In Comedy III, an artist sketched The Three Stooges and sold merchandise bearing their image, causing the owner of their rights of publicity to sue for misappropriation of their identities. Id. at 407. The Court held that the work was not transformative because it literally resembled the Stooges rather than transforming their images into something more than celebrity likeness. Id. at 409. The Court explained that the focus is on whether the defendant transforms the celebrity’s likeness such that it becomes the defendant’s own creative expression. Id. at 406. Thus, the artist could not claim his work was transformative because he simply “[created] a conventional portrait of a celebrity so as to commercially exploit” the celebrity’s fame. Id. at 408. Conversely, in ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that a painting commemorating Tiger Woods’s victory at the Augusta Masters Tournament was transformative because the work did not simply depict Woods but combined other images “to describe, in artistic form, a historic event in sports history and convey a message about the significance of Woods’s achievement.” See ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 938 (6th Cir. 2003).

However, a court is unlikely to consider most celebrity-based beer brands and labels to be transformative because their names and artwork are not clearly making a commentary or critique. For example, one Biggie-inspired beer—simply called “Notorious B.I.G.”—provides no commentary and instead copies the rapper’s name. Another example is a beer called “Label Us Notorious”—a lyric from The Notorious B.I.G.—featuring a silhouette image of The Notorious B.I.G. behind a microphone. It is unclear if this beer qualifies as a parody because its artwork does not “transform” Biggie’s image beyond his likeness. Rather, it appears the brewery is simply pulling from the original source to benefit off of the celebrity’s likeness. Furthermore, the commentary provided is not readily apparent other than the brewer touting its notoriety. As a result, the beer brand likely commercially exploits The Notorious B.I.G.’s identity. However, if a brewer made a brand or label that is a distinct expression depicting more than The Notorious B.I.G.’s likeness and conveying a significant message, the brewer may prevail. In short, if a brewer is going to parody a celebrity without permission, they not only should expect a lawsuit, but also, they should be good at parodying in a transformative manner.

If a brewer successfully defends their beer as a parody, the brewer will avoid financial loss associated with the lawsuit because the losing party must cover the brewer’s costs. However, the brewer risks other losses because it is unclear if the brewer has intellectual property protections in the brand and label since the beer brand is a riff on existing intellectual property. (Guest Lecture with Mike Kanach.) In theory, a brewer should receive protection since it made a sufficiently expressive and new mark, but protections remain uncertain which allows others to copy the parody. (Guest Lecture with Mike Kanach.)

III. How Craft Brewers Can Avoid Issues with the Right of Publicity

Craft brewers can avoid liability from the right of publicity if they sufficiently parody the celebrity. However, parody does not avoid the issue but invites it. Instead of leaning on parody, brewers often blatantly appropriate the name and likeness of celebrities in “one-off runs” and sell small batches of beer from their taprooms over a short period of time. Typically, the beer is gone and the sale is over before the brewer receives a cease and desist letter. Serving small amounts of beer exclusively in the taproom allows brewers to market it as a limited-edition offer. Additionally, serving beers from the taproom often involves no artwork invoking the likeness of the celebrity, and if it does it can simply be a parody or rework. Furthermore, the profits generated in these one-offs are miniscule in comparison to continuous sales, which reduces the incentive of filing a lawsuit because the gross revenue does not outweigh the costs of a lawsuit. In that sense, it really is “Mo Money Mo Problems.”

Even so, one-off runs are not advisable because stealing other’s intellectual property is financially and legally risky and ethically questionable. Brewers should not make this behavior a regular practice because continuous appropriation of other’s property makes right of publicity holders and courts less likely to be forgiving in future litigation. Rather, if a brewer seeks to use the name and likeness of a dead celebrity, it would be prudent for the brewer to reach out to the holder of the celebrity’s right of publicity and enter into a licensing agreement to avoid future lawsuits. Still, an agreement does not guarantee zero right of publicity issues; for example, North Coast had an agreement with Thelonious Monk, Jr. before their lawsuit regarding “Brother Thelonious Abbey Ale.” Instead, the best way to avoid issues is to simply not appropriate the name and likeness of a dead celebrity at all. By not using a deceased personality, brewers entirely avoid any potential issues associated with the post-mortem right of publicity.

1. Conclusion

Right of publicity challenges outweigh the commercial benefits of using a deceased personality in beer brands and labels. If brewers ignore the post-mortem right of publicity, they risk financial harm because the statutory right of publicity prevents future sales and redeems lost profits, noneconomic damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. There are ways to avoid this fallout through parody, but just because a brewer can defend a brand in a lawsuit does not mean it should because parody allows other brewers to riff on the brand, diluting the commercial advantage of the initial parodist. Furthermore, brewers may limit production and sell the celebrity-based beers only in their taproom as a one-off run to disincentivize a lawsuit because a one-off small batch sale limits the profits that the estate could recover. However, this behavior still exposes craft brewers to legal challenges from often well-financed owners of a post-mortem right of publicity. Brewers can avoid issues from the unconsented use of a deceased personality by contacting the holder of the right of publicity and making a written licensing agreement to use the name and likeness of the celebrity on the beer and associated merchandise. But this can sometimes devolve into legal battles that can also harm brewers and divest them of profits. Thus, the best way to avoid issues is by simply not having a dead celebrity-based beer brand at all.

Aloha everyone. As per my custom, below is an unedited  paper written by Tracy Dudick (a rockstar evening student at McGeorge) during my last Craft Beer Law class. This paper examines the sometimes complex relationship between craft beer and legal cannabis.  While there are some similar studies out there, Ms. Dudick provides some great insights and ideas.  See below

Craft Beer and Cannabis Can Coexist

There has been a shift in consumer choice and what is considered culturally acceptable when it comes to legal intoxication. Where nights that used to be filled with a case of domestic beer and joints of a friend’s uncle’s marijuana, now involve a twelve pack of local craft beer and a stop by the neighborhood dispensary. Even more recently with the coronavirus pandemic, the cannabis industry has reached a new level of legitimacy – as cannabis, as a whole, was deemed an “essential” part of life nationwide.

As the cannabis industry continues on the road to legalization, it has been predicted legal marijuana usage could adversely impact the demand for alcohol. However, data suggests legalization in the short term has not affected craft beer sales. In fact, these fears are predominately felt by Big Beer and further pushed through media outlets to create hesitation among the alcohol industry to support marijuana legalization.[1] Despite this rising fear, it seems local craft breweries and some of the world’s largest macro-breweries are leaning into the cannabis industry. At this point, there is no reason to think cannabis and craft beer cannot peacefully coexist, or even support one another.

1. Craft Beer and Cannabis Can Coexist.

As a preliminary note, marijuana and hops are cousins in the plant world. Cannabis and craft beer are both products of counterculture – where craft brewers have fought for their place in the beer industry, cannabis continues on a slow and uncertain road to legalization. Unlike craft beer, the marijuana industry’s approach to start-up cultivation is considerably more difficult because of higher entrance barriers and stricter regulations.[2] Specifically, the federal government remains marijuana’s most prominent barrier to reaching its full potential. While craft beer is successful at navigating regulatory hurdles, the industry still faces blockades from all levels of government that hinder its true growth.

When the craft brewing industry emerged, the focus departed from America’s typical macro lager and shifted to traditional styles from Europe.[3] This departure led to craft brewers competing to make stronger beers, which subsequently led to greater consumer choice. The craft beer industry’s ability for innovation allows them to offer new products that give consumers choices they previously did not know existed, thus uncovering preferences they did not even know they had. Alike, cannabis innovation can come from anywhere – a grower in their garage or a corporate lab.

According to BDS Analytics, a cannabis market research company, 54% of cannabis users drink beer; however, about half of the cannabis consumers who drank alcohol do not view the two products appropriate for the same occasion.[4] In fact, over a sixth month study, BDS found only 13% of cannabis consumers said they paired marijuana with craft beer. Nevertheless, 68% of cannabis users said their consumption of craft beer stayed the same.[5] Therefore, the evidence suggests the craft beer drinker is not substituting craft beer for a cannabis product – but rather consumes different products at different times.

However, this is not necessarily true in Canada, where marijuana has been fully legal nationwide since October 2018.[6] According to analysts at Wall Street’s Cowen and Co., they believe Canadians are smoking more marijuana than drinking beer because beer sales dropped off by nearly 6.8% in March 2019, which at the time, was the most significant hit in over two years.[7] Moreover, analysts directly connect Canada’s fading interest in beer to the country’s move to legalize marijuana.[8] However, it begs the question if this data considers the considerable change in the beer market in Canada – where mass-marketed, light-bodied lager are on the decline and craft beer is on a rise. Can one really blame it on the weed?

Maybe not. Bob Pease, president and CEO of the Brewers Association, believes the brewing sector is only getting bigger in states that have legalized marijuana – specifically in Colorado, California and Washington. For example, Colorado was one of the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use and beer sales have not shown any signs of being in jeopardy.[9] In fact, Colorado broke a beer sales state record last year – consuming 1.6 million more gallons of beer than the same month in 2018.[10] A major reason for this boost was lifting the state restrictions – where beer had a 3.2 percent ABV cap on beer sold in retail outlets. Notably, the Colorado cannabis industry recently broke a sales record in March 2019 – further supporting the argument that craft beer and marijuana can live together in harmony.[11]

Furthermore, this arbitrary fear pushed into the media of legal marijuana negatively affecting the beer industry is predominately Big Beer’s fear. In the past decade, Americans have experienced a change in taste regarding food and drink – with farm to fork menus, craft cocktails, and craft beer at the forefront of this change.[12] When Big Beer faced a drastic decrease in the market share, they began to unfairly influence the marketplace by purchasing ownership interest in craft breweries in order to penetrate the market and recover its lost market share.[13] Just like craft beer, Big beer also likely views legalization of marijuana a threat to its market place. Big beer has and continues to lobby against the legalization for fear of a competitive threat.[14] Therefore, it makes sense Big Beer would push against legalization for fear of losing anything more than they already have.

2.  Does Co-Existence Include the Combination?

Now that we have established the growing industries can co-exist in the world of legal intoxication, but can they be combined? In 2017, alcohol infused with hemp or cannabis became a new phenomenon and craft beer circumvented regulatory hurdles and federal prohibition by making a beer that only had cannabinoids and does not contain THC – the psychoactive property of cannabis.[15] But as of 2019, infused beverages only made up a mere 2 to 3 percent of total sales – indicating the possibility that consumers do not want to consume their cannabis the same way they consume beer.

However, the coronavirus pandemic has also impacted consumption behavior recently. As of April 2020, cannabis infused beverage sales have increased by 14%, which is a big jump for the category. The change in consumer sales is seemingly based on the fact the virus attacks the respiratory system, so consumers prefer to eat or drink their cannabis instead of smoking or vaping it.[16] Despite the recent jump in consumption of infused drinks, it is still unclear whether consumers are demanding the infusion of craft beer and cannabis – but that has not stopped Big Beer from investing.

Although most of Big Beer lives in fear of legalization, the large alcohol craft beer acquirers are taking a more progressive approach. Specifically, Big Beer has invested significant money in the cannabis industry, partnering with large legal marijuana producers to invest in cannabis beverage ventures.[17] For example, in 2018, Molson Coors took a controlling stake in a joint venture with a licensed pot producer in Canada. Anheuser-Busch InBev put $50 million toward a similar joint venture with the British Columbia-based Tilray. Lagunitas, now owned by Heineken already sells a hop-flavored, pot-infused sparkling water at marijuana dispensaries, in partnership with Sonoma’s CannaCraft. Constellation Brands, which includes Corona and Modelo, threw down nearly $4 billion — the biggest investment in the history of marijuana — on a 38 percent share in the largest Canadian marijuana producer.[18] For a market player to actively lobby against legalization, these investments beg questions of Big Beer’s intent. Most likely, the reality is Big Beer is trying to break into the market to help increase the slow, steady decline from the past couple decades. However, the logistics of doing this at a commercial level are nearly absurd, as the regulation at state and federal levels are uncertain and unclear. Thus, craft beer should not be concerned with Big Beer’s overwhelming investment. The newly formed relationship between cannabis and Big Beer seems comparable to a business executive marrying a trophy spouse – where appearances seem fun but even if it works, it will most likely be short lived. As legalization continues to change the regulatory environments in states, and eventually the federal government, the production of cannabis-infused beer is on the rise, but it will take time to see if they are here to stay.

Despite the fear peddled by Big Beer, there is no evidence to suggest craft beer and cannabis cannot co-exist in the world of legal intoxication. As consumer palates evolve and counterculture makes its way into culture, we will likely see more of the two industries working in harmony, rather than in competition. Although the change in consumption may demand more batches of cannabis-themed beer, regulatory uncertainty still remains, particularly with the combining THC with alcoholic beverages. As craft brewers and craft growers continue to advance in their innovations, it seems most reasonable for the two industries to support each other as they combat Big Beer and regulatory barriers.

[1] Hayley Peterson, Yep, Marijuana Legalization is Bad News for Beer Sales, SLATE (Dec. 7, 2016),

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/12/07/beer_sales_take_a_hit_in

_states_where_marijuana_is_legal.html (“The data indicates that many beer drinkers are swapping their six-packs for marijuana instead”, then later citing that mainstream beer sales are down more than craft beer sales. Id.).

[2] Jim Tankersley, How Pot and Hippie Beer Explain the Future of the American Economy, THE WASH. POST (Nov. 7, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/07/in-the-land-ofmicrobrews-and-marijuana/?utm_term=.36889bdcc11c

[3] Newman, Tyler, Escape from the Underground: Lessons to the cannabis industry from craft beer, The Growler (Mar. 27, 2018) https://growlermag.com/escape-from-the-underground-lessons-to-the-cannabis-industry-from-craft-beer/

[4] Kendall, Justin, Beer Institute Examines the Marijuana Industry During Annual Meeting (Jun. 13, 2018)   https://www.brewbound.com/news/beer-institute-examines-marijuana-industry-annual-meeting

[5] Id.

[6] Hauser, Lyle, Canada’s legalization of marijuana offers a blueprint for the U.S. (Mar. 22, 2019) https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/canada-legalize-marijuana-lessons-united-states/

[7] Adams, Mike, Is Legal Marijuana Hurting Beer Sales Or Helping Them? (May 21, 2019) https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2019/05/21/is-legal-marijuana-hurting-beer-sales-or-helping-them/#6358947f47bd

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] 5 N. DAVEY NEAL, CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING LOCAL BREWERS AND VINTNERS (2015), 2015 WL 9875437, at *3.

[13] Eileen Faust, Fast Fact About the Merger of Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller, THE MORNING CALL (Oct. 5, 2016) http://www.mcall.com/business/getsmart/mc-fast-facts-about-anheuser-buschinbev-merger-20161005-story.html; For a full list of craft breweries purchased by AB InBev, see The Cut Off – List of Imposter Craft Beer Brands, BREW STUDS, http://wearebrewstuds.com/craft-beer-cut-off/

[14] Scheherazade Daneshkhu and Lindsay Whipp, US Drinks Industry Ponders Effect of Cannabis Legalization, FINANCIAL TIMES (Nov. 25, 2016) note 105 (specifically citing Boston Beer Company, though calling themselves craft beer, as another Big Beer conglomerate).

[15] Press Release, Malkin Law, Cannabis Infused Alcohol (Feb. 14, 2017), http://www.malkinlawfirm.com/cannabis-infused-alcohol/. While hemp-infused beer is technically legal, the regulations by the federal government are abundant: This adds to the already tedious amount of regulations which brewers must face every day).

[16] Salarizadeh, Cynthia, Cannabis Consumer Behavior Alters With Covid-19 Quarantine: Edibles & Drinks Surge (April 3, 2020) https://www.greenmarketreport.com/cannabis-consumer-behavior-alters-with-covid-19-quarantine-edibles-drinks-surge/

[17] Alicia Wallace, Alcohol Goliath Pours $190M into Canadian Cannabis Company, THE CANNABIST (Oct. 30, 2017), http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/10/30/constellation-marijuana-investmentcanopy/91171/.

[18]Lewis, Amanda Chicago, Big Alcohol is pouring billions into the drinkable marijuana market. But is that how anybody wants to get high? (July 30, 2019) https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/30/18639829/weed-beer-drinkable-marijuana-cannabis-drinks-alcohol