The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) announced today that Albertsons LLC, Safeway Inc., and The Vons Companies, Inc. have agreed to pay $600,000 following an ABC investigation that alleged violations of California alcoholic beverage laws.
$300,000 is due in 30 days, with the remaining $300,000 stayed on the condition that none of the companies engage in similar misconduct during the next two years.
The violations arose out of the sale of alcoholic beverages in connection with the 2018 Monopoly Promotion conducted by the Albertsons company at its Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, Pac N Save, and Pavilions stores. The promotion advertised certain beer brands produced by MillerCoors as part of the Monopoly game and customers received additional chances to win prizes in the sweepstakes promotion if they purchased certain MillerCoors products.
ABC filed disciplinary action against 599 stores statewide. “Today’s action reinforces ABC’s commitment to regulate a fair and healthy market place where all licensees play by the same rules,” said ABC Director Jacob Appelsmith. “This particular violation gave these retailers a competitive advantage by offering consumers a gift or premium for purchasing alcoholic beverage products.”
The California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act prohibits the giving away of premiums, gifts or free goods in connection with the sale or marketing of alcoholic beverages. This restriction helps prevent overly aggressive marketing practices by alcohol licensees, which can lead to anti-competitive behavior. These laws are intended, in part, to promote a healthy alcohol marketplace by maintaining a level playing field through the regulation of retailers of alcoholic beverages and preventing one retailer from illegally getting a leg up on its competitors.
11 comments
No, they agreed to pay $300,000 and not commit the same crime again for 2 years.
The Monopoly game seems like a huge waste of paper and time.
CG, it is. A HUGE waste of time. Did it once. It was like having a second job.
The Monopoly Game seems like a huge waste of paper and time. It seems ironic that they charge customers .15 per paper/plastic bag, yet they design the Monopoly tickets to be opened and immediately thrown away, thus wasting far more paper than the amount they save.
FYI
It’s .10¢ per bag.
State law
FYI
If they really were .10¢ per bag, then you could get ten for a penny.
People know the bags costs much less than ten cents, and likely are less than a penny each when bought wholesale. The goal behind ten cents is to nudge people to bring their own bags.
Also, those ten cent bags are also required to be of sufficient quality that they can be re-used.
Finally, the law does not say “ten cents.” Rather it’s “shall not sell the reusable grocery bag for less than ten cents ($0.10)” and later in the same law it’s “not less than ten cents ($0.10) per bag.” That’s why the price is never less than ten cents and in some stores it’s 15 cents, a dollar, or more.
I don’t believe anyone would switch to a different brand to simply get game pieces. People like what they like. Coors and Miller doesn’t do it for me.
Oh brother so much regulation. I remember the good old days when things like this were no big deal.
I don’t care about this Monopoly game and never played it. But I don’t understand the rationale given for why this kind of thing is considered “anti-competitive.”
“The California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act prohibits the giving away of premiums, gifts or free goods in connection with the sale or marketing of alcoholic beverages. This restriction helps prevent overly aggressive marketing practices by alcohol licensees, which can lead to anti-competitive behavior. These laws are intended, in part, to promote a healthy alcohol marketplace by maintaining a level playing field through the regulation of retailers of alcoholic beverages and preventing one retailer from illegally getting a leg up on its competitors.”
That’s just word salad. Why does a level playing field for alcohol require something that isn’t required for other products? And what would be illegal about “getting a leg up” if there were no such regulation? It’s only illegal because of this law. So that doesn’t explain anything. It sounds like the law intentionally restricts competition because … well, I have no idea from the gobbledygook paragraph above.
Thats’ 500 bucks per store. That’s gotta hurt.
Comments are closed.