 |
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy An Educational Project |
|
E-Commerce :: Alcohol and Tobacco | |
|
- Ecommerce - Advertising - - Behavioral - Alcohol & Tobacco - Antitrust - Crypto - Delivery - DNS - E-Medicine - E Signatures - Fraud - Gambling - Intellectual Property - Online Investing - Privacy - Taxes - Statistics |
Derived From: GAO Report: Internet Cigarette Sales: Giving ATF Investigative Authority May Improve Reporting and Enforcement (Aug 2002)
"The DOJ is responsible for enforcing the Jenkins Act
, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the primary investigative authority. However, DOJ and FBI headquarters officials did not identify any actions taken to enforce the Jenkins Act with respect to Internet cigarette sales.
"ATF has ancillary authority to enforce the Jenkins Act.4 Since 1997, ATF has initiated three investigations of Internet cigarette vendors for cigarette smuggling, a felony offense, which included the investigation of potential Jenkins Act violations. One investigation is ongoing, another was referred to state authorities who obtained Jenkins Act compliance by the vendor without prosecution, and a third was not pursued by a grand jury. ATF is planning other actions to promote compliance with the act and address the growing issue of Internet cigarette sales. ATF officials said consideration should be given to transferring primary jurisdiction for investigating Jenkins Act violations from the FBI to ATF. According to the officials, having primary jurisdiction would give ATF comprehensive authority to enforce federal laws involving interstate cigarette distribution. The officials said ATF would use resources to specifically conduct Jenkins Act investigations, which should result in increased enforcement.
"Overall, seven of nine selected states had made some effort to promote Jenkins Act compliance by Internet cigarette vendors. These efforts consisted of contacting Internet vendors and U.S. Attorneys' Offices, but they produced few results. Six of the seven states, for example, contacted Internet vendors to inform them of their Jenkins Act reporting responsibilities. However, some vendors told state officials that they did not have to comply with the Jenkins Act. For those Internet vendors that did respond by reporting cigarette sales, the states generally collected small amounts of cigarette taxes from consumers. In addition, two of the seven states asked U.S. Attorneys to help promote Jenkins Act compliance by sending letters to Internet cigarette vendors informing them of the Jenkins Act reporting requirements. The U.S. Attorneys, however, did not provide the requested assistance.
"Officials in all nine states expressed concern that Internet cigarette sales would continue to increase in the future, with a growing and substantial negative effect on their tax revenues. Officials in one state, California, estimated a tax loss of approximately $13 million from May 1999 through September 2001 because of Internet cigarette vendors not complying with the Jenkins Act. However, officials in each of the states said that they lack the legal authority to successfully address this problem on their own and that greater federal action is needed to enforce the Jenkins Act. Officials in four of the states said that they believe ATF should be the federal agency with primary jurisdiction for enforcing the act.
"Our Internet search efforts identified 147 Web site addresses for Internet cigarette vendors based in the United States (see app. II). None of the Web sites posted information that indicated the vendors complied with the Jenkins Act.5 Conversely, information posted on 78 percent of the Web sites indicated the vendors do not comply with the act. For example, 31 percent of the Web sites stated the vendors either do not report cigarette sales or do not comply with the Jenkins Act. Sixteen percent of the Web sites and four vendor representatives cited their Native American status, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and other laws as reasons for not complying with the act. However, our review of the laws cited, as well as the Jenkins Act and its legislative history, indicates that neither Native American status nor any of the laws cited relieve Internet vendors of their Jenkins Act responsibilities. Only 5 percent of the Web sites posted notices of the vendors' reporting responsibilities under the Jenkins Act, and those that did also indicated that the vendors do not comply. Twenty-one percent of the Web sites contained statements notifying customers of their potential state tax liability for cigarette purchases or the customers' responsibility for complying with state cigarette laws."
Federal Activity
- The Case for Online Wine Sales and Direct Shipment, Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. October 30, 2003
- RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., No 992-3025, Agreement Containing Consent Order (FTC 1999) (requiring health warnings in Tobacco advertising including Internet advertising)
Law
- Jenkins Act 15 USC s 375
Caselaw
- Granholm v. Heald, S.Ct. 5/17/2005
- Supreme Court Ruling Makes The Net More Viable For Small Vineyards, Information Week 5/17/2005
- Supreme Court okays net wine sales, Register 5/17/2005
- Justices Hear Cases on Shipping Wine, Ecommerce Times 12/10/2004
- Supremes evaluate Internet booze shopping, Register 12/10/2004
Papers
- USG
- Possible Anticompetitive Barriers to E-Commerce: Wine A Report from the Staff of the Federal Trade Commission(JULY 2003) [PDF 3.2MB]
- Patricia Davidson, Christopher Banthin, Untangling the Web: Legal and Policy Tools to Restrict Online Cigar Advertisement, 35 USFL Rev. 1 (Fall 2000)
- CME, Youth Access to Alcohol and Tobacco Web Marketing: The Filtering and Rating Debate
Webcasts & Podcasts
- Challenging the Ban on Online Liquor & Wine, Justice Talking 3/29/2005