Two More Quietly Transformative ABC-Law Bills in Albany: Brand Owners and For-Profit Clubs

New York’s 2025 legislative session produced two additional alcohol-law proposals with outsized implications for hospitality, beverage producers, and investors: a first-in-state “Brand Owner’s License” and a new on-premises license for “For-Profit Clubs.” Both measures cleared the Legislature in June and, as of August 15, 2025, sit with the Governor. When read together, they foreshadow a more adaptable, modernized licensing framework that could have far-reaching effects beyond New York.

The Brand Owner’s License

Assembly Bill A.6277-A, substituted for S.567-A, would add ABC Law §61-c and expressly authorize a “Brand Owner’s License.” Any person holding a federal Basic Permit could obtain this license. It would allow three things that today are either unclear under New York’s three-tier structure or require cumbersome workarounds: contracting with New York-licensed manufacturers to make the brand’s product; appointing a New York wholesaler as an exclusive brand agent to solicit, negotiate, and receive payments for sales to retailers; and selling to New York wholesalers with payment remitted to the brand owner. The bill sets a $125 annual fee and authorizes SLA rulemaking to implement the section. NYSenate.gov

The legislative history confirms rapid movement in early June: passage by the Assembly on June 9 and by the Senate on June 12, with a clear statement of purpose in the Assembly memo that the license “memorializes” commonplace co-packing and brand-owner arrangements seen elsewhere, thereby retaining production and jobs in-state. New York State Assembly

Industry coverage underscores the practical aim: reduce friction for craft producers who co-pack and for independent brands that don’t own a New York plant, while aligning state law with how beverage supply chains operate in the rest of the country. craftspiritsmag.comMid Hudson News

Why this matters legally

In theory, §61-c doesn't dismantle the three-tier system; it defines the roles within it more clearly. The Brand Owner remains distinct from the manufacturer and wholesaler, and sales to retailers still flow through a licensed wholesaler “exclusive brand agent.” But codifying the brand owner’s ability to contract for in-state production and to receive payments through the wholesaler directly addresses prior ambiguity in New York’s tied-house and payment-routing rules. Expect SLA rules to flesh out operational details such as brand-agent appointment notices, payment mechanics, records retention, and the interplay with existing franchise and territorial-designation law in §101-b. NYSenate.gov

Market impact you should anticipate

If enacted, New York manufacturers—distilleries, breweries, wineries, and cideries—gain cleaner authority to co-pack for third-party brands, potentially smoothing financing and insurance for those contracts. Brand incubators and celebrity-led labels, which often start without dedicated plants, would have a simpler New York entry path. Wholesalers gain clarity around “exclusive brand agent” status and remittance flows, which should reduce disputes in chargebacks and brokered collections. Net-net, the measure lowers transaction costs and could increase in-state production volume without upending tier separation. New York State Assembly

The New York State Assembly has not directly singled out celebrity-based contract manufacturing in its Brand Owner’s License bill memos, but the framework would clearly accommodate it. By enabling brand owners—whether industry veterans or celebrity entrepreneurs—to contract with in-state manufacturers, the bill lowers barriers for high-profile labels to enter the New York market without building their own facilities. While this can drive publicity and sales, it also raises potential concerns about quality control, marketing compliance, and consumer transparency, particularly where the public may conflate the celebrity’s involvement with actual production oversight. Legislators and the SLA may need to guard against misleading representations and ensure that co-packed celebrity brands meet the same manufacturing and labeling standards as long-standing New York producers.

The For-Profit Club License: Member-Only, Commercially Operated Clubs

Assembly Bill A.7040-B (Senate companion S.652-A) would add ABC Law §64-f to create an on-premises “For-Profit Club” license. The bill allows a for-profit entity to operate a private membership establishment for defined purposes—recreational, social, patriotic, political, benevolent, communal workspace, corporate dining, or athletic—serving alcohol to members and their guests.

The annual fee is $20,000, with community notification required and full SLA enforcement authority maintained. The text mandates a minimum of 100 members for a club and specifically accommodates corporate-dining clubs by easing membership formalities while imposing requirements for recordkeeping and disclosure. New York State Assembly

The Assembly bill text outlines consumption limitations (restricted to members and guests), eligibility, fees, and factors the SLA should consider in public-interest determinations, such as license density, traffic and parking, noise, violation history, and discrimination concerns. The measure also permits temporary licenses during processing.

Historically, New York’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law restricted “club” licenses to bona fide not-for-profit entities, such as fraternal organizations, veterans’ posts, and social clubs formed for charitable or community purposes. The proposed For-Profit Club license would represent a marked departure from that model by allowing commercially operated, membership-only venues to obtain on-premises liquor licenses. In many other states, for-profit private clubs—ranging from high-end social houses to business-oriented gathering spaces—are an established and regulated part of the hospitality landscape. This bill would align New York with those jurisdictions, creating a statutory framework that recognizes the commercial reality of modern membership-based hospitality while preserving key controls, such as member-only service and public-interest review, to prevent unlicensed public bar operations under the guise of club status.

Why this matters legally

The bill draws bright lines that help avoid “de facto public bars” hiding behind membership veneers. Member-and-guest service, 100-member minimums, notice requirements, and SLA discretion on public convenience and advantage collectively act as guardrails. At the same time, the statute contemplates modern concepts—co-working clubs and corporate dining—with tailored compliance such as recordkeeping and disclosure of third-party catering or management contracts. This represents a substantial alignment of hospitality practices with licensing regulations. New York State Assembly

Market impact you should anticipate

Expect growth in curated, membership-based hospitality: social houses, wellness and athletic clubs, chef-driven corporate dining rooms, and cultural or industry guild clubs. The $20,000 annual fee and compliance footprint likely limit frivolous entries while creating a scalable model for premium operators. For municipalities, the community-notice requirement and SLA’s enumerated public-interest factors will frame neighborhood negotiations over noise and traffic. For investors and landlords, the license provides a more straightforward underwriting narrative compared to converting to a not-for-profit club status. New York State Assembly

Consumers vs. Retailers: Who Gains What

From a consumer standpoint, the Brand Owner’s License has the potential to significantly expand both the range and speed of products entering the New York market. By removing structural hurdles for contract manufacturing within the state, it could pave the way for a greater number of limited-edition releases, seasonal collaborations, and niche labels to be produced locally and reach shelves faster—reducing the supply delays that often occur when a brand scales more quickly than anticipated. For retailers, the formalization of the “exclusive brand agent” model offers a clearer and more efficient channel for ordering, invoicing, and communication, all while maintaining the regulatory safeguards that protect the wholesaler’s role in the three-tier system. The key challenge will be in the implementation phase: wholesalers and brand owners will need to develop precise, well-documented agreements that outline payment flows, territorial rights, and operational responsibilities to prevent disputes, and they will have to ensure strict compliance with any procedural requirements introduced by the State Liquor Authority’s forthcoming regulations. NYSenate.gov

For consumers who join members-only venues, the proposed For-Profit Club license could offer access to highly curated environments—spaces designed for exclusivity, comfort, and tailored amenities that foster a sense of community and perceived safety. These benefits, however, would be limited to dues-paying members and their invited guests; the broader public would not gain direct access or service. From a local business perspective, nearby retailers and residents may be concerned about potential secondary impacts, such as increased traffic, parking pressures, or noise associated with evening operations. The bill’s built-in safeguards—most notably, the statutory public-interest evaluation by the State Liquor Authority and mandatory community-notification process—are intended to give stakeholders a formal opportunity to raise objections, propose conditions, or negotiate operational limits before a license is granted, ensuring that the integration of such venues is managed in a way that balances commercial opportunity with neighborhood interests. New York State Assembly

New York in the National Context

Many states have, for years, recognized the realities of brand ownership and contract manufacturing by creating explicit statutory license categories or adopting flexible agency interpretations that allow brand owners to operate without owning production facilities. These frameworks typically permit co-packing arrangements and direct relationships with wholesalers while preserving the three-tier structure, giving producers and brand owners a predictable legal environment in which to grow. Against that backdrop, New York’s legislative memo for the Brand Owner’s License underscores the state’s intent to “catch up” to “virtually anywhere else in the country” by formalizing these practices and embedding compliance guardrails—ensuring that brand owners can contract with in-state manufacturers and appoint exclusive wholesale agents without eroding wholesaler protections.

Similarly, the For-Profit Club proposal mirrors licensing models already in place in many jurisdictions, where private membership venues—often high-end social clubs, industry-specific gathering spaces, or hybrid hospitality and workspace concepts—operate lawfully under tailored “special club” or “private club” permits. What distinguishes New York’s approach is the bill’s specificity: it explicitly extends eligibility to modern formats like communal workspaces and corporate dining clubs, while also codifying public-interest review factors such as noise, traffic, and license density directly in statute. This not only reduces the risk of inconsistent agency decisions but also provides clearer expectations for applicants and affected communities, making the framework a potential model for other high-density, tightly regulated markets.

Compliance Playbook if These Bills Become Law

Industry participants should begin planning now to move quickly once the bills are enacted. Brand owners will need to ensure they hold an active federal Basic Permit, formally appoint exclusive brand agents in writing, and revise invoicing, escrow, and remittance processes to comply with forthcoming SLA regulations. Manufacturers should update co-packing agreements to address intellectual property protections, quality-control obligations, and any interplay with franchise laws, as well as amend their premises method-of-operation filings if contract production will impact capacity or workflow. Wholesalers should develop uniform brand-agent notification forms and payment protocols to minimize reconciliation disputes. For-profit club applicants should prepare comprehensive bylaws, establish clear membership criteria and guest policies, implement reliable systems for maintaining member records and handling corporate-dining exceptions, and engage proactively with the community in anticipation of the statute’s public-interest review requirements.

Timelines, Process, and Litigation Outlook

Both measures have cleared the New York State Senate and Assembly and now await action by the Governor, with multiple practitioner alerts indicating a decision is expected in the “second half of 2025.” If signed into law, each bill would take effect either immediately or on the specific schedule set forth in its chapter enactment. Following enactment, the State Liquor Authority will issue interpretive guidance, and in the case of the Brand Owner’s License (§61-c), will promulgate formal rules to operationalize the new framework.

From a legal standpoint, neither proposal undermines the state’s three-tier distribution system; instead, both introduce targeted compliance requirements that reinforce its core separation principles. As a result, direct constitutional challenges—such as those grounded in the Commerce Clause or equal protection—are improbable. The more likely points of contention will emerge during the regulatory implementation stage. These may include disputes over the breadth of SLA’s rulemaking authority, particularly regarding documentation and reporting obligations; the structuring and oversight of payment flows under the “exclusive brand agent” model; and the specific operational restrictions or conditions imposed on for-profit clubs as part of the statutory public-interest review and community-notification process. Greenberg Traurig+1PublicNow

Bottom Line

The Brand Owner’s License positions New York’s regulatory framework squarely within the realities of contemporary beverage commerce, fostering in-state production opportunities while maintaining the integrity of the three-tier system. The For-Profit Club license, meanwhile, formally recognizes and regulates an expanding segment of membership-driven hospitality, encompassing everything from upscale social clubs to corporate dining venues. For consumers, these changes promise greater product variety and access to thoughtfully curated environments. For retailers and wholesalers, they offer a more defined set of rules and additional avenues for high-end offerings. For legal counsel guiding new entrants or established operators, these measures represent strategic tools that can create competitive advantages—provided they are approached with thorough and proactive compliance planning. Luckily,

I know a gal for that-- Wright@RuppPfalzgraf.com