I find it strange that a business is not able to advertise their products price just because the product is alcohol. Happy hour is not a bad or unhealthy type of service, how people use alcohol is the issue with excessive drinking. As long as businesses are not encouraging excessive use of alcohol I think they have a right to not only advertise happy hour but the happy hour prices as well. This is also for the benefit of the consumer. We have a right to know and compare prices between businesses with ease.

Amending 3VAC5-50-160 is a positive change. This will prove to be beneficial for restaurants, as advertising their happy hours will generate more business for them, as well as provide their customers with more knowledge about what they are serving. It is also good that there is a stipulation that the advertising should not target minors, however I feel like responsible business owners would not target minors anyway. Additionally, making the regulation more concise by taking out superfluous information is good as well. Not allowing businesses to advertise happy hour feels somewhat antiquated, so I am happy that this change has been made.

While I substantively agree with the proposed regulation, I am confused on the enforcement of the regulation. 3VAC5-50-160(C) permits an expansion of the content allowed to be placed in "Happy Hour" advertisements, save for price, as long as the advertisement "does not induce minors or interdicted individuals to consume alcohol or encourage people to consume in excess."

Herein lies the issue: what authority decides if language is directed towards minors or encourages individuals to consume in excess? How strictly enforced will this rule be and how can each case establish precedent over what is and is not allowed? If characters from a children's cartoon show are used as part of an advertisement, does that count as language directed towards minors? If so, how about characters from animated shows intended for more mature audiences? Will those be allowed? I understand that this may be splitting hairs, but to what degree is the state interested in dedicating an administrative body to review cases like these? What will the standard be for adjudication? Will advertisers be given a warning? How are complaints made? Will precedent be used to decide what language is acceptable and what is not? 

To reiterate, I do believe this regulation is appropriate and reflects a changing social demographic in the state. Ultimately, this regulation will allow businesses to more effectively market their goods and appeal to consumers. More work is needed to define what language will be acceptable and what will not be. 

Amending 3VAC5-50-160 is a long overdue, necessary action for this body to undertake. The current inability of licensed establishments to (responsibly) advertise their Happy Hours is detrimental to both the businesses affected by this law and the localities those businesses reside in. By allowing licensed establishments to advertise Happy Hour, this body will enable local businesses to draw more potential customers and thus potentially create more tax revenue for the localities said establishments are located in. 

The only issue with the proposed amendment is the language contained within it. As another commenter pointed out, the language surrounding "targeting minors" through advertisement is overly vague. Leaving the language regarding minors as vague could lead to different interpretations by VA-ABC officials as to what constitutes "Targeting minors". A specific standard should be further delineated within this amendment so there is no confusion as to what is acceptable advertising (I.e. doesn't target or influence minors) and what is not considered acceptable advertising.