As usual, you have helped us all think more clearly.  Thanks, Martin.

As usual, you have helped us all think more clearly.  Thanks, Martin.

I think a libertarian might say that information regulation is not the province of the state. The market can develop secondary certification sources. Car Max, for example, certifies that its brand of previously used cars is different and better than Joe’s Auto and Hairstyling Salon’s used cars. Others can produce information to help consumers make more informed decisions. The only problem is that this is likely to be more costly than if the government makes a rule that allows for private fraud actions against a fraudulent grape monger. Economists would say use the market if the market can provide a lower cost of information provision than the government. If the government can do it cheaper, then certain information regulation make sense. On the 3rd hand (heh), if the government does have an advantage in providing for information regulation right now, the government has little incentive to keep up with the times and allow for innovation in the regulation. This might not be a problem with wine, but it is a problem with other types of information regulation (for example, who can practice law and what is the unlicensed practice of law!)

I think a libertarian might say that information regulation is not the province of the state. The market can develop secondary certification sources. Car Max, for example, certifies that its brand of previously used cars is different and better than Joe’s Auto and Hairstyling Salon’s used cars. Others can produce information to help consumers make more informed decisions. The only problem is that this is likely to be more costly than if the government makes a rule that allows for private fraud actions against a fraudulent grape monger. Economists would say use the market if the market can provide a lower cost of information provision than the government. If the government can do it cheaper, then certain information regulation make sense. On the 3rd hand (heh), if the government does have an advantage in providing for information regulation right now, the government has little incentive to keep up with the times and allow for innovation in the regulation. This might not be a problem with wine, but it is a problem with other types of information regulation (for example, who can practice law and what is the unlicensed practice of law!)

You’re doing a lot of assuming, John.   I think libertarians are far more likely to be laissez faire (and “buyer-beware”) about issues like this, or at least very minimalist about how much information is mandated, especially where — as here — the information about the georgraphic source of the wine does appear on the label to correct any misunderstanding due to the brand name.   As the California Supreme Court notes in Bronco Wines v. Jerry R. Jolly, the

“grandfather clause” appended to the federal regulation exempts from the federal regulation’s prohibition an otherwise misleading geographic brand name if the brand name was in use prior to July 7, 1986, and the front label also discloses the true  geographic source of the grapes used to make the wine contained in the bottle. (Id.,

You’re doing a lot of assuming, John.   I think libertarians are far more likely to be laissez faire (and “buyer-beware”) about issues like this, or at least very minimalist about how much information is mandated, especially where — as here — the information about the georgraphic source of the wine does appear on the label to correct any misunderstanding due to the brand name.   As the California Supreme Court notes in Bronco Wines v. Jerry R. Jolly, the

“grandfather clause” appended to the federal regulation exempts from the federal regulation’s prohibition an otherwise misleading geographic brand name if the brand name was in use prior to July 7, 1986, and the front label also discloses the true  geographic source of the grapes used to make the wine contained in the bottle. (Id.,

Not sure I agree with you on this one. A libertarian is likely to espouse, “give the market accurate information and let the market take care of itself.” Prof Bainbridge is consistent if we assume that using “Napa” for non-Napa products is misleading to consumers.

Not sure I agree with you on this one. A libertarian is likely to espouse, “give the market accurate information and let the market take care of itself.” Prof Bainbridge is consistent if we assume that using “Napa” for non-Napa products is misleading to consumers.