Floor pricing Is the wrong move for North Carolina consumers

North Carolina consumers deserve fair prices, real choices, and a modern spirits marketplace. The North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission should not move in the opposite direction by adopting “floor” pricing plans that would prevent discount sales on spirits. Setting artificial bottom prices may be described as orderly regulation, but for consumers it means one thing: the government is deciding that savings are a problem.

The Commission has acknowledged it is studying baseline pricing for spirituous liquor, including market impacts, health and safety considerations, legal authority, and possible implementation. That study should end with a simple conclusion: price controls that block discounts are bad public policy. North Carolina already has a uniform state pricing system for spirituous liquor. Layering a no-discount floor on top of that system would further insulate the ABC structure from the consumer discipline that exists in almost every other retail market.

 In a normal marketplace, businesses compete for customers. They lower prices, offer promotions, clear inventory and reward shoppers who look for value. Consumers benefit from that competition. A floor price does the opposite.

It tells every customer that the lowest allowable price is not determined by efficiency, demand, or consumer choice, but by government rule.

 That is unfair to responsible adult consumers who are already dealing with high costs.

A bottle discounted by a few dollars may not matter to a bureaucracy, but it matters to the people paying the bill. Government should not force consumers to pay more simply because the existing system is uncomfortable with competition.

Floor pricing also reinforces the central problem with North Carolina’s ABC control system: it operates as a government-protected monopoly with a police force.

The state controls the distribution and retail framework for spirits, sets prices through a statutory formula, regulates permits and enforces the rules. When that same system seeks to prohibit discounts, it sends the message that preserving control is more important than serving consumers.

Supporters may claim floor pricing promotes public health and safety. Those goals matter. But responsible regulation does not require shielding a monopoly from price competition. North Carolina can enforce age laws, punish illegal sales, support treatment and prevention, and promote responsible consumption without telling adults they may never benefit from a sale price.

The better path is modernization, transparency, and consumer fairness. If the ABC system is going to continue controlling spirits in North Carolina, it should be held to a higher standard of accountability, not granted new tools to keep prices artificially high. Consumers should be trusted. Local businesses should have room to compete. State regulators should not make affordability the enemy.

The NC ABC Commission should reject floor pricing. It is a bad deal for consumers, a sorry policy for the Commission and another reminder that North Carolina’s spirits system needs reform—not another layer of control.