Missouri interprets its tied-house law as prohibiting suppliers and distributors from retail advertising, arguing that retail advertising is a “financial interest in the retail business.”
There is an exception: A supplier or wholesaler may run an ad identifying two or more independent locations where a product may be purchased. But they cannot include the retail price of the product. Also prohibited: advertising discounted prices for a product outside a retail shop and retailers advertising a product at prices below retailers’ actual cost outside their shops. But in their shops, they can advertise below-cost prices.
Citing history in other states, Missouri argued that the statute prevents undue influence by producers, suppliers and wholesalers. That’s nice, the court replied, but other states don’t represent Missouri’s experience. To pass muster, a statute must “directly and materially advance Missouri’s interest of preventing undue influence.”
As for regulations implementing the statute, the court noted they don’t reduce overconsumption of alcohol or underage drinking. The state offers no empirical or statistical evidence, study or expert opinion demonstrating how the regulations protected the state’s interests.