ARTICLE
3 June 2025

Keep Wining: Franchise Statute Opens Door To Protections For Missouri Wine Distributor

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
The Eighth Circuit recently applied a novel, broad reading of the Missouri Franchise Act granting franchise protection to distributors which previously...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

The Eighth Circuit recently applied a novel, broad reading of the Missouri Franchise Act granting franchise protection to distributors which previously would not likely have been considered franchisees.

In Pinnacle Imports, LLC v. Share A Splash Wine Co., LLC, a Missouri-based wine distributor, Pinnacle, entered an oral agreement in 2013 to be the exclusive Missouri distributor for California wine supplier, Share A Splash. Share A Splash ended the agreement in 2021 and appointed Pinnacle's competitor as its new Missouri distributor. Pinnacle sued, alleging the termination violated the Missouri Franchise Act and that Share A Splash needed “good cause” to end the alleged franchise agreement. 

The district court found that Pinnacle was not a “franchise” as defined by the Act and granted Share A Splash summary judgment. More specifically, the court found that as a matter of law, Pinnacle did not “demonstrate or display” the product to customers, a requirement of franchises under the Act. The court reasoned that although Pinnacle occasionally brought customers to their headquarters and allowed them to peruse wine for purchase, this was not a part of Pinnacle's regular course of business, and they are consequently excluded from protection as a franchisee under the Act. 

The Eight Circuit reversed. It found that “displaying or demonstrating” goods did not have to be a regular occurrence to satisfy this requirement. The court held Pinnacle presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether it would qualify for protection as a franchisee under the Act. While the Eight Circuit did not provide guidance on a floor to meet this requirement, it did open the door to allow more distributors access to franchisee protection under the Act. 

Key Takeaways:

  • Distributors may qualify for franchise protection under the Missouri Franchise Act, even in oral agreements where no explicit franchisor-franchisee relationship is established
  • A distributor does not need to regularly demonstrate or display goods in a fixed location to find potential protection under the Missouri Franchise Act

Special thanks to JJ Gramlich, a summer clerk in Foley's Dallas office, for his contributions to this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More