HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection is fining a Maryland-based liquor store chain $37,500 for violating state law on minimum pricing of alcohol.
The chain, Total Wine & More, currently is suing the state in federal court, challenging the decades-old law that prohibits retailers from selling wine and liquor below a minimum price.
The Connecticut Package Store Association recently filed a formal complaint, accusing Total Wine & More of already selling below the minimum price. The association has successfully fended up numerous legislative attempts to scrap the law.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
10 comments:
Connecticut and Maryland?
I'm confused.
What happened to fair market value?
Barney Rubble said...
Connecticut and Maryland?
I'm confused.
September 2, 2016 at 9:03 PM
It's chain based in Maryland but has a franchise in Ct.
Isn't this what one could call 'price-fixing'?
The job of government is the protection of the people.
When a corporation gains a monopoly advantage, the people are harmed.
The Federal government used to bust up monopolies.
Now they insert minimum price laws at state level.
This prevents a large or rich corporation from destroying the market on purpose in order to destroy the competition.
Thank God for Government people!
Anyone still think we are a market based capitalist economic system?
The consumer is the LAST person theses wanna-be Nazi's EVER consider. Why don't they consider a MAXIMUM price for groceries and gas?
Oh yeah. Right. The bribes they take would dry up pretty fast and being a "representatove" would be just another job, instead of a path to lucrative influence and untold wealth.
Start the hanging. Before its too late.
Government should have nothing to do with the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Anonymous said...
Government should have nothing to do with the sale of alcoholic beverages.
September 3, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Why not? They once tried to prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Really....? Explain Comcast.
Looks to me like 4:34 smacked 11:27 right across his idiot face.
And 11:27 can't answer the question either.
Not with any reasoning that might rise above his initial absolutely stupid observation.
2:45 also came in a close second with a question that made about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.
I hope they can't vote.
Post a Comment