.svg)
Ready-to-drink (RTD) cocktails – those convenient canned or bottled mixed drinks – are at the center of a fast-growing battle in state legislatures. Historically, many states restricted spirits-based RTD cocktails to liquor stores, even as malt-based RTDs (like hard seltzers and beer-based cocktails) freely line supermarket shelves. Now a wave of bills across the U.S. aims to let canned cocktails made with vodka, tequila, or other spirits share the grocery and convenience store aisle with beer and wine. Texas and Alabama have emerged as key battlegrounds, reflecting a broader national push for parity. Trade groups like the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS) are backing these changes, citing booming consumer demand and tax revenue, while beer industry allies and some liquor store interests resist, raising public health and fairness concerns. This feature explores the evolving legislative landscape, using Texas and Alabama as case studies, and examines how market trends, economic arguments, and consumer sentiments are driving the debate.
In Texas, a state known for some of the nation’s quirkiest alcohol laws, lawmakers are considering a dramatic change. Senate Bill 2225 (and its companion House Bill 4077) would allow grocery and convenience stores to sell spirit-based RTD cocktails up to 17% ABV – a privilege currently reserved only for liquor stores. On April 17, the Texas Senate Business and Commerce Committee advanced SB 2225, moving it to the full Senate for consideration.
“This has been my most popular bill that people have called me on,”
said State Sen. Kelly Hancock (R–Fort Worth), who sponsored the measure, calling it a “commonsense bill” to expand competition. If the bill passes the legislature and is signed into law, Texans could, by September 1, buy canned cocktails (containing spirits like vodka, tequila, etc., mixed with soda or juice) at the same places they already buy beer and wine.
Such a change would be monumental for Texas. Currently, no spirits of any kind are sold in Texas grocery stores, and state law even bans publicly traded corporations from owning liquor store licenses. Grocery chains get around this by operating separate, privately held liquor store subsidiaries. Additionally, Texas still has a Prohibition-era ban on liquor sales on Sundays. The proposed RTD bills would chip away at these old rules by carving out low-alcohol canned cocktails from the definition of “liquor,” allowing their sale under the beer-and-wine licenses grocery and convenience outlets already hold. It’s a targeted modernization: only drinks up to 17% ABV in single servings could be sold outside liquor stores, maintaining the prohibition on full-strength spirits in those venues.
Support for the Texas reform appears strong among consumers and some industry players. In one survey, 86% of Texas consumers voiced support for allowing spirits-based RTDs where beer and wine are sold. Major retail trade groups like the Texas Food & Fuel Association have made changing the law a “top priority,” aligning with DISCUS in lobbying for the bills. Proponents argue that a canned vodka soda at 5% ABV poses no more risk than a 5% ABV hard seltzer – indeed, many popular spirit RTDs have equal or lower alcohol content than beer (for example, High Noon vodka seltzer is about 4.5% ABV, slightly less than a standard 5% beer). They also point to the economic boost: The Distilled Spirits Council estimates Texas could reap about $160 million in new tax revenue over five years if RTD sales expand.
Opposition in Texas, however, is vocal. Package liquor store owners fear losing a monopoly on spirits sales, and beer distributors – who currently dominate the RTD space with malt-based products – worry about encroachment on shelf space. Beer industry groups and the Texas Package Stores Association (representing liquor retailers) have pushed back, raising the specter of public safety issues and underage access if spirits become more ubiquitous.“Beer is a drink of moderation,” one beer trade campaign argues, implying that even low-proof cocktails are a gateway to harder drinking. The head of the Beer Institute went so far as to label spirit-based canned cocktails “nothing more than gateways to higher ABV products,” insisting that spirits companies shouldn’t get tax breaks just because “some small portion of [their] portfolio” is low alcohol. So far, Texas lawmakers appear unconvinced by these arguments; as Hancock notes, he’s “not in this business to protect the package store or beer distributor industry” but to give consumers and small businesses more options. All eyes are now on the Texas Legislature’s final votes, as football season 2025 could coincide with Texans grabbing canned Margaritas at the grocery store for the first time.
In Alabama, a state with its own legacy of strict alcohol controls, a similar reform is racing forward with uncommon bipartisan support. In April 2025, both the Alabama House and Senate tourism committees approved bills (HB 521 and SB 286) to legalize the sale of spirits-based RTD cocktails in licensed grocery and convenience stores. These identical bills, sponsored by Rep. Craig Lipscomb (R) and Sen. Bobby Singleton (D), would allow stores already selling beer and wine to stock low-alcohol canned cocktails as well. The defined limit is no more than 7% ABV per container, keeping these beverages in the same potency range as a strong beer. Alabama law today permits grocery and convenience retailers to sell beer, wine, and even malt-based “cocktails,” but not spirit-based ones. If the bills pass, Alabamians could soon buy products like High Noon vodka seltzers or Cutwater canned margaritas at the corner store, instead of having to find a state-run or licensed package store.
The effort in Alabama is notable for its broad coalition of supporters. The “Alabamians Ready for Convenience Coalition” includes the Distilled Spirits Council, the Alabama Grocers Association, the Petroleum and Convenience Marketers of Alabama, and even major distributors like United-Johnson Brothers. After the committee victories, DISCUS praised the progress:
“Committee passage of these bills is a great first step in providing increased consumer convenience in Alabama,”
said Corey Staniscia, DISCUS VP of state government relations. Stakeholders tout the reform as pro-consumer and pro-business, noting nearly two-thirds of Alabama adults favor allowing RTD cocktail sales in regular stores, according to a recent survey. “Customers keep asking for these products…they don’t understand why we can sell a Truly malt liquor in our stores, but not a Truly vodka,” testified one Birmingham-area Piggly Wiggly grocery manager, highlighting shopper demand for spirits-based options. Retailers see a chance to boost sales and satisfy customers looking for a one-stop shop for all drink preferences.
Crucially, the Alabama proposal navigates a complex web of regulatory interests that had stymied earlier attempts. For several years, RTD expansion bills in Alabama failed amid disputes over distribution rights and franchise protections. The state’s alcohol wholesalers were split: many beer distributors opposed previous versions of the bill, fearing they’d be locked out or lose leverage under “exclusive territory” rules for spirits products. Alabama’s latest bill version represents a carefully negotiated compromise. It imposes a franchise system (suppliers must assign territories to distributors) but also creates a new license category combining beer, wine, and RTD spirits, thereby allowing existing beer and even soft drink wholesalers to distribute spirits RTDs more easily. This change converted some former opponents into supporters.
“You’ve got to compromise to get things moving,”
said Jimmy Marston of Gulf Distributing, one of the state’s largest beer wholesalers, now endorsing the measure after franchise language was tweaked. Even the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, which oversees liquor sales, moved from opposition to neutrality once the bill capped RTD strength at 7% ABV (down from 12+% in earlier drafts) and allocated a portion of new tax revenue to the agency for enforcement.
“At this point, I’m neutral…which is a change from the last couple of years where I had some real problems with it,”
admitted Curtis Stewart, the ABC Board administrator.
Still, not everyone in Alabama is on board. A faction of beer wholesalers remains opposed, fixating on a provision requiring “fair market value” compensation if a supplier terminates a distributor without cause. They argue the bill deregulates alcohol too far and worry that changing the franchise status quo “is never good for health and public safety”. Public health rhetoric has indeed been employed by opponents who warn of easier youth access or increased drinking if spirits are sold more widely. But supporters note that the same outlets already sell beer and wine, so ID checks and oversight are already in place, and the beverages in question are similar in strength to what’s currently available. As Bart Fletcher, president of the convenience store trade group in Alabama, put it,
“We don’t need to be keeping these products away from consumers that want them simply because of a small minority [of opponents]”.
With momentum building, Alabama’s RTD bills were headed to floor votes in each chamber. Long-time sponsor Sen. Singleton sounded optimistic:
“We’ve gotten further than we’ve ever gotten…we can’t just sit on the sideline and let one or two big cats…stop everybody else from getting this product”.
The bipartisan backing and industry compromise in Alabama could make it one of the next states to officially bless canned cocktails in convenience stores.
Texas and Alabama are part of a national trend as the spirits and hospitality industry pushes to level the playing field for RTD cocktails. In fact, as of early 2024, only 29 states allowed spirits-based RTDs to be sold in regular grocery or convenience stores, while nearly every state (47 out of 50) permitted malt-based alcoholic RTDs in those outlets. This disparity – largely a legacy of post-Prohibition laws that treated “hard liquor” differently – has led to a patchwork of rules. Now, a flurry of states are re-examining their laws, with many considering or enacting legislation to broaden RTD availability or adjust taxes:
Fueling these legislative changes is an undeniable boom in the RTD cocktail market. In the span of a decade, RTDs have exploded from a niche to a significant share of Americans’ alcohol consumption. A decade ago, RTDs (mostly malt-based back then) comprised only ~3% of the overall alcohol market; today they make up about 12% of total alcohol sales – roughly a fourfold increase. In dollar terms, the U.S. RTD market (including hard seltzers, canned cocktails, etc.) is valued at over $36 billion and is forecast to approach $100 billion by 2031. These figures combine both malt-based and spirits-based RTDs, but the fastest growth in recent years has been on the spirits side. According to industry tracker IWSR, new canned cocktail products (often spirit-based) are launching at almost three times the rate of hard seltzers, and that momentum is showing up in sales data.
Spirits-based RTDs (cocktails made with distilled liquor and mixers) have been “spearheading” growth in the spirits industry. Nationwide sales of spirits RTDs jumped +35.8% in 2022 to reach about $2.2 billion, then surged another +26.8% in 2023 to about $2.8 billion in U.S. retail sales. Chris Swonger, CEO of DISCUS, noted that RTD cocktails were among the top five fastest-growing spirits categories in 2022 – a remarkable feat considering this includes stalwarts like tequila and whiskey. The star of the segment is High Noon, a vodka-based seltzer line by E.&J. Gallo, which became the best-selling spirits brand by volume in the RTD category in 2023. High Noon’s meteoric rise (reportedly doubling sales) has even begun to challenge leading malt seltzer brands in some markets. Other popular spirits RTD brands include Cutwater Spirits (owned by Anheuser-Busch) with its cocktails like vodka mules and margaritas, Two Chicks sparkling cocktails, SunnyD Vodka Seltzer, On The Rocks (premium cocktails by Beam Suntory), and countless craft distillery offerings. Major liquor brands are jumping in too – for example, Absolut and Ketel One have released canned vodka sodas – sensing that consumers crave convenience without sacrificing the liquor base.
Meanwhile, malt-based RTDs, which include hard seltzers, flavored malt beverages and sugar-brew “cocktails,” still command the majority of volume but are losing share. Hard seltzer pioneers like White Claw and Truly fueled the initial RTD craze around 2018-2019, gobbling up shelf space with 5% ABV fruity fizz. But as consumers increasingly seek “real cocktails” made with spirits, malt RTDs have seen sales plateau. From 2021 to 2023, malt-based products fell from 91% of total RTD volume to about 83%, while spirits-based RTDs doubled from roughly 8% to 16% of volume. In effect, spirits are eating into what was almost entirely a malt beverage domain just a few years ago. Some of this shift is a form of “premiumization” – the industry buzzword for consumers opting for higher-quality (or at least higher perceived quality) drinks, even if a bit more expensive. Many drinkers who started with hard seltzer are now “trading up” to spirits-based drinks like a real vodka seltzer. As one commentator wryly observed,
“High Noon is the spirits-based upgrade to White Claw; Surfside (an up-and-coming vodka iced tea brand) is the logical next step beyond Twisted Tea”.
The flavor options have expanded as well – whereas a few years ago canned cocktails were mostly vodka sodas and malt pseudo-margaritas, today you can find genuine canned margaritas, mojitos, mai tais, and more made with their proper base spirits.
Consumer demand for RTDs is broadening beyond just summer barbecues. Retailers report that what was once seen as a warm-weather fad has turned into a year-round category.
“Everybody is still coming out with RTDs. We say ‘no’ to over half [the new brands] that come in because [our shelves are full],”
said one New York liquor store owner, noting he still keeps a huge High Noon display due to its pull. NielsenIQ data showed RTD sales (across all types) grew 126% in 2022 alone in off-premise channels. The category’s growth outpaced beer, wine, and traditional spirits in percentage terms, although from a smaller base. This surging popularity is precisely why supermarkets and convenience stores want in on the action – and why spirits producers are lobbying states to update laws. Every percentage point of market share that shifts from malt to spirits RTDs potentially means millions in revenue flowing via different tax rates and through different retail channels.
Advocates for expanding RTD sales argue that the economic benefits are significant – both for private businesses and for state coffers. Allowing spirits-based RTDs in more outlets can boost local businesses like distilleries, grocers, and convenience stores, and also redirect consumer spending that might otherwise cross state lines. DISCUS often cites that when states level the playing field, it “boosts small businesses” and “raises state tax revenues” without increasing the alcohol content available to consumers. We saw Texas estimate $160 million in new taxes over 3-5 years; similarly, Arizona’s analysis found that lowering the RTD tax could generate up to $16 million in additional economic activity. In Pennsylvania, initial RTD permit fees and sales in late 2024 were already contributing funds to the state’s general revenue and the Liquor Control Board. Essentially, states fear missing out on a booming segment – if consumers want canned cocktails, they might just buy beer-based versions (with lower tax) or drive to a border state with more lenient laws, unless local laws adapt.
Retail competition dynamics are also at play. Large grocery chains and big-box retailers have been lobbying for these changes, eager to expand their alcohol offerings. For groceries, adding a selection of canned cosmopolitans or whiskey cola drinks means higher basket sales and attracting shoppers who value convenience. “One-stop shop” convenience was repeatedly mentioned in legislative hearings – today’s time-strapped consumers would rather pick up everything for the party (chips, beer, and canned cocktails) in one grocery run, instead of making a separate trip to a liquor store for RTDs. Convenience stores similarly see RTDs as a growth driver, especially as tobacco sales decline and fuel margins are thin. A NACS (National Association of Convenience Stores) representative in Texas noted the bills would “expand competition and boost small businesses,” and that many small, independent convenience store owners could increase profits by meeting customer demand for spirits RTDs.
On the producer side, distillers big and small stand to gain new points of distribution. A craft distillery that cans a few cocktails could access a much wider retail network if grocery stores can carry them, as opposed to being limited to liquor stores (where shelf space is often dominated by major spirit brands and high-margin bottles). This has led many craft distillers and state guilds to back RTD bills. Even some beer companies are now in favor – notably, industry giants that have bought into the RTD trend. Anheuser-Busch/InBev, for example, owns Cutwater Spirits and also produces NÜTRL vodka seltzer; Molson Coors markets an RTD line with Topo Chico Spirits and owns Blue Moon LightSky (a beer/spirits hybrid). These cross-over beverage companies want their products in as many outlets as possible, regardless of whether it’s classified as beer or liquor. Their involvement complicates the traditional “beer vs. spirits” divide, and some beer wholesalers have broken ranks to support RTD parity when they have skin in the game via distribution rights.
Of course, liquor store owners and some wholesalers argue that broader RTD sales could hurt certain businesses. Independent package stores worry that if canned cocktails move to every gas station and supermarket, it will siphon off a category that currently draws customers into their shops. Many liquor stores rely on being the only source for spirits-based products – losing even just the RTD segment could mean less foot traffic (and fewer opportunistic sales of higher-margin items). In states like New York or Massachusetts where grocery stores still cannot sell any spirits or even wine, liquor store associations remain powerful opponents to liberalizing RTD access. They contend that expanding availability might simply shift sales from one channel to another (from liquor stores to grocery), rather than create net new economic activity, while also threatening the survival of small liquor retailers. Lawmakers have tried to balance these concerns by keeping ABV caps low (so higher-strength canned cocktails – which could be seen as substitutes for full bottles of liquor – remain in liquor stores) and sometimes by limiting package sizes (like California’s 16-ounce max can size in SB 277, to prevent larger multi-serving jugs from being sold outside liquor stores).
Another economic angle is the tax and regulatory cost differences. Traditionally, spirits are taxed at a much higher rate than beer or wine. When a canned cocktail is sold as a “spirit,” the producer and distributors incur higher excise taxes and often more complex distribution rules (franchise agreements, etc.), which can make the product more expensive on the shelf. Several states have tackled this by creating a new tax classification for low-ABV spirits drinks. Michigan, Vermont, and Nebraska did so, and even Alabama’s bill as amended would set a modest excise tax of about $0.29/gal (roughly 3.5¢ per 12-oz can) on RTDs, channeled partly to enforcement. By comparison, without reform, those cans might be taxed like liquor at rates equivalent to 40–50¢ or more per can in some states. Lowering the tax specifically on RTDs can actually increase revenue if it dramatically boosts sales volume and keeps products affordable. This was part of the pitch in states like Arizona and New Jersey, though their tax-cut bills faced opposition from those wary of reducing any “sin tax.” Nonetheless, economists note that overly high taxes on spirits RTDs just drive consumers to cheaper malt alternatives or out-of-state purchases. Finding the sweet spot in tax policy is thus an important economic consideration intertwined with RTD availability.
Any expansion of alcohol availability raises the question: what about public health and safety? Opponents of RTD liberalization often frame their arguments around these concerns (even if motivated by economic interests). It’s true that increasing the number of outlets selling alcohol can correlate with higher alcohol accessibility. Some public health advocates worry that allowing spirits-based drinks in convenience stores – which sometimes have less rigorous oversight than dedicated liquor stores – could increase the risk of underage purchase or impulsive consumption. There’s also concern that marketing of sweet, ready-to-drink cocktails could attract younger drinkers or those less experienced with alcohol’s effects.
However, supporters counter that in the case of low-proof RTDs, the public health differential is minimal. The beverages in question are around 5–10% ABV, comparable to beers and wine coolers that are already sold widely.
“The rationale for maintaining different rules is illogical… Many spirit-based RTDs are only 5 to 6 percent ABV, just the same as malt-based versions,”
a recent analysis in Reason magazine pointed out. In fact, some canned cocktails have lower alcohol content than craft beers (many IPAs range 6–8% ABV). Regulators in states like Alabama took this into account: the Alabama ABC Board was comfortable with a 7% cap precisely because it’s in line with beers, whereas they balked when earlier bills allowed 12%+ which might edge toward true liquor strength.
The age verification and oversight argument is also addressed by the nature of these laws – only stores that are already licensed to sell alcohol (beer/wine) would be permitted to add spirits RTDs. Those stores are already enforcing ID checks at checkout and are subject to penalties for selling to minors.
“From a practical standpoint, we’re not talking about new outlets on every corner – just the same stores that already responsibly sell alcohol,”
noted a DISCUS spokesperson during one state hearing. There is little evidence to suggest that a 21-year-old buying a canned cocktail at a supermarket is more dangerous than buying a Smirnoff Ice or a six-pack of beer. In both cases, the sale is regulated and the product’s strength is moderate.
Drunk driving and safety: Some opponents raise concerns that convenience store availability (especially at gas stations) could encourage drinking-and-driving. It’s worth noting that open container laws and DUI laws remain unchanged – drinking the product in the car is illegal regardless of where it was bought. Moreover, many convenience stores in states like Alabama and Texas already sell beer and wine at fuel stops; adding RTDs doesn’t inherently change the risk equation, as any alcohol purchase requires personal responsibility.
Health organizations’ stance: So far, the debate over spirits RTDs has not attracted the same level of pushback from groups like MADD or public health nonprofits as, say, the debates over liquor store privatization or extending bar hours. It appears the relatively low ABV and the “containment” of RTDs within existing alcohol retail systems has kept controversy at bay. That said, some health advocates do caution that total alcohol consumption could inch up if products are more ubiquitous and convenient. The CDC and others note that greater outlet density can increase per capita consumption. It’s a point to monitor: states expanding RTD sales may need to invest in public education on responsible drinking or monitor any changes in consumption patterns.
Interestingly, the beer industry’s public health argument – encapsulated in campaigns like “Stand With Beer” – has drawn skepticism. Critics accuse big beer companies of “protectionist rent-seeking” under the guise of safety. By painting liquor-based RTDs as something sinister, they are arguably leveraging old temperance-era tropes. The Reason analysis dryly compared it to claiming a person who enjoys a mild High Noon will suddenly start chugging straight whiskey – a slippery-slope that doesn’t reflect typical consumer behavior. In reality, many drinkers likely substitute one type of drink for another (e.g. choosing a canned cocktail instead of a hard seltzer), rather than start drinking more units of alcohol overall just because it’s available. Policymakers in states like Texas and Alabama have largely sided with this view, seeing the issue as one of fairness and modernizing laws rather than encouraging new drinking.
To ensure public safety, most of these legislative proposals do include safeguards: clear labeling of ABV, limits on container sizes, and in some cases dedicated shelving or signage to avoid confusion with non-alcoholic drinks. States that implemented RTD sales (like Pennsylvania) are monitoring the rollout, but early reports have not indicated any uptick in violations or incidents since allowing canned cocktails in groceries. As the regulatory environment catches up, we may also see updated guidance on how these products can be marketed in-store, to ensure they’re not inadvertently targeted to underage audiences (many have colorful packaging that could be mistaken for energy drinks, for example).
The push to open grocery aisles to canned cocktails has seen unusual alliances and spirited lobbying from multiple fronts. On one side, the Distilled Spirits Council (DISCUS) and its consumer-focused partner Spirits United have been leading advocates. DISCUS has provided research, testified in state capitols, and coordinated coalitions highlighting that beer and wine RTDs already enjoy an advantage. Their messaging emphasizes consumer choice and equal treatment. For instance, Spirits United launched campaigns like “Ready for Convenience” in states including Alabama, urging citizens to email legislators in support of RTD bills. These efforts present everyday consumer voices – highlighting moms wanting to grab margarita cans with groceries, tailgaters seeking convenient cocktails, etc. – to counter the idea that only industry giants want this change. The fact that surveys consistently show majority public support (from ~66% in Alabama up to 80–86% in some national polls) is a powerful talking point they leverage. DISCUS also smartly enlisted small business owners: testimonies from craft distillers, convenience store franchisees, and local grocers personalized the economic benefits of RTD reform.
Large retailers and their associations have been crucial as well. In Alabama, the grocery and convenience store associations not only joined the coalition but provided on-the-ground political muscle. These groups can sway state legislators by pointing to the local store owners in every district who stand to benefit. The inclusion of chains like Rutter’s (in PA) or GIANT publicly praising RTD sales, or the Piggly Wiggly manager in AL sharing customer anecdotes, adds a grassroots flavor to what might otherwise seem like a purely big-industry ask. The involvement of United-Johnson Brothers (a distributor) in Alabama’s coalition and beer wholesalers like Gulf Distributing switching to support show that even segments of the middle-tier alcohol industry are part of the “grassroots” pressure – especially when compromises address their concerns.
On the opposing side, the beer industry’s lobbying apparatus has mobilized in several states to slow these reforms. The National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) and the Beer Institute, along with many state-level beer alliances, have submitted testimony and funded campaigns arguing against spirits in food stores. Their messaging, such as the Beer Institute’s “Stand With Beer” campaign, often tries to rally craft brewers, beer distributors, and even some public health supporters around the idea that beer’s long-standing market access should be preserved. In states like New Jersey and Maryland, beer wholesalers reportedly poured significant resources into quietly defeating RTD bills before they gained traction. Liquor store associations are also key opponents; in Texas, the Texas Package Stores Association has considerable clout and has warned that “big box” retailers will undercut family-owned liquor stores. They’ve banded together with some surprising allies at times – for example, church groups or social conservative lawmakers who view any expansion of alcohol availability skeptically.
Interestingly, consumer grassroots opposition to RTD expansion is not very evident. Unlike fights over, say, expanding liquor sales on Sundays (which sometimes draw religious opposition), allowing low-alcohol cocktails in new venues hasn’t generated much organic public protest. This lack of broad public opposition gives reformers an advantage – they can frame it as a mostly positive change with minimal downside. Even so, lawmakers must tread carefully and demonstrate E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) by consulting with regulators and health experts, not just industry reps. In Alabama, for instance, the involvement of the ABC Board in crafting the final bill showed a commitment to expert oversight. In Texas, lawmakers have cited the experience of 31 other states that already allow grocery RTD sales as evidence that it can be done responsibly.
Trade organizations on both sides underscore their points with data and experiences from other states. DISCUS often points to states like Vermont or Michigan that saw craft distilleries grow after RTD laws changed, and notes that there haven’t been spikes in underage incidents. The beer lobby, conversely, may highlight any negative trends (for example, if a control state saw liquor store revenues dip after RTDs went to grocery, or any statistical uptick in consumption in a state post-reform – though such data is hard to pin solely on RTDs). At public hearings, it’s not uncommon to hear references to “what happened in X state” as each side tries to bolster its case with external evidence.
In the court of public opinion, media coverage has largely been favorable to RTD expansion or at least neutral/factual. Local news stories tend to emphasize the convenience angle and the popularity of these drinks, often quoting consumers excited about the possibility of buying Jack & Coke cans at a supermarket. Industry news outlets and beverage magazines have framed it as part of a modernization of archaic laws. Editorial boards have been relatively quiet, though one might expect some op-eds if controversy grows. So far, the narrative has been more “this is a logical update” than any moral panic.
The expanding legislative efforts around spirits-based RTDs signal a significant shift in the U.S. alcohol landscape – one that appears to be accelerating. As 2025 progresses, Texas and Alabama could join the ranks of states granting broader retail access to canned cocktails, potentially encouraging holdouts to follow. Each state’s journey reflects a balance of tradition and modernity: Texas wrestling with its post-Prohibition legacy and powerful liquor lobby, and Alabama crafting careful compromises in a historically conservative environment. Success in these states would add momentum to similar bills in states like Ohio, North Carolina, and beyond that are surely watching and waiting.
From a market perspective, the distinction between “beer aisle” and “liquor store” products is blurring. Consumers have made it clear they don’t necessarily differentiate a hard seltzer from a vodka soda in a can – they simply want their favorite flavors and brands, conveniently packaged. Regulators and lawmakers, armed with data about equal ABV levels and potential tax windfalls, are increasingly convinced that many of the old rules simply don’t make sense in this context. As one California legislator said,
“More and more [RTDs] have come on the market in recent years, and they average less ABV than wine and even some beers”
– so why should they be treated as untouchable liquor? That sentiment is gaining bipartisan agreement.
Of course, any change in alcohol policy should be implemented with care. States expanding RTD sales will need to ensure training for store staff, clear guidelines for placement and signage, and perhaps public awareness campaigns about what these products are (to prevent confusion that could lead to unintentional underage interest). Ongoing dialogue with public health experts can help fine-tune policies – for example, if canned cocktails prove particularly alluring to younger drinkers, states might consider stricter ID checks or limit single-can sales at gas stations late at night. The public health impact will need continued monitoring, but if early-adopting states serve as an example, the reforms can roll out without significant issues.
For the alcohol industry broadly, the push for spirits RTD parity is part of a larger trend of “modernizing” beverage laws. We’ve seen the rise of cocktails-to-go during the pandemic (now permanent in over half the states) and direct-to-consumer shipping allowances for distillers inch forward. Allowing RTDs in more outlets is another facet of bringing Prohibition-era laws in line with contemporary consumer behavior and expectations. It doesn’t hurt that states stand to gain financially and that the change appeals across party lines – “convenience and free market competition” is a politically palatable rallying cry.
In summary, the humble canned cocktail has stirred up a complex mix of economic, regulatory, and cultural factors. But the trend line is clear: those colorful cans and bottles of ready-to-drink margaritas, vodka sodas, and whiskey colas are likely to become a common sight in grocery carts in more and more states. As long as the RTD market continues its red-hot growth and consumers vote with their wallets (and surveys), the movement for broader distribution will gain further credibility. The competition in the alcohol sector – between big beer and spirits, between liquor stores and big retailers – will undoubtedly continue, but it will do so on a more level playing field if these reforms take hold. In the end, it seems the marketplace and consumer preference are driving policy: states are learning that you can’t put the cap back on the bottle once the public develops a taste for something new. Spirits-based RTDs are here to stay, and soon, they might be available at a corner store near you.
.svg)
Industry intel in your inbox — from major headlines to expert insights, stay ahead in the business of alcohol.
