Answer the following questions about this case below; What does the doctrine of undue burden on interstate commerce accomplish? Should the government be allowed to treat internet sales differently than in-store sales? Can the law keep up with the changes brought by e-commerce and digital devices? Are new laws required to apply to the digital environment?

THE CASE:

In this information age, federal and state governments have had to grapple with how to regulate the internet and e-commerce. State laws that unduly burden interstate e-commerce are unconstitutional. Consider the following case.

Michigan law permits in-state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers, including by mail, internet, and other means of sale. Michigan law prohibits out-of-state wineries from selling wine directly to Michigan consumers, including over the internet. Michigan requires out-of-state wineries to sell their wine to Michigan wholesalers, who then sell the wine to Michigan retailers, who then sell the wine to Michigan consumers.

Domaine Alfred, a small winery located in San Luis Obispo, California, and several other out-of-state wineries that were prohibited from selling wine directly to Michigan consumers sued Michigan. The plaintiff wineries alleged that the Michigan law caused an undue burden on interstate e-commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Michigan state law that discriminated against out-of-state wineries in favor of in-state wineries caused an undue burden on interstate e-commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court stated, "State bans on interstate direct shipping represent the single largest regulatory barrier to expanded e-commerce.