- | Technology and Innovation Technology and Innovation
- | Journal Articles Journal Articles
- |
Buried Online: State Laws That Limit E-Commerce in Caskets
Consumers seeking to purchase caskets online could benefit from the Supreme Court's June 2005 decision that states cannot discriminate against interstate direct wine shipment.
The Study
- Examines constitutional law and economic analysis relevant to state laws requiring independent casket retailers to be licensed funeral directors.
- The analysis is relevant because federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions when asked whether state laws requiring casket sellers to be licensed funeral directors violate the U.S. Constitution.
Our Findings
- Consumers seeking to purchase caskets online could benefit from the Supreme Court's June 2005 decision that states cannot discriminate against interstate direct wine shipment.
- In Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court declared that discriminatory barriers to interstate wine shipment must be justified by a legitimate state interest, and states must present real evidence that the discrimination is necessary to accomplish their policy objectives.
- State funeral regulations which impede electronic commerce in caskets would almost certainly fail a Granholm-style factual analysis.
- Most courts have found that licensing requirements are unrelated to the business of selling caskets.
By the Numbers
- Consumers spend $10 billion annually for funerals, cremations, and related expenses.
- A casket typically costs $2,000-$3,000.
- Courts have found that independent casket retailers typically charge 50% less for a casket than funeral homes.
- University of Oklahoma economist Daniel Sutter found that funeral homes' receipts per death were about $450 (11%) higher in states that required a funeral director's license and imposed the most extensive training requirements.
Our Conclusions
- State regulations requiring casket retailers to be licensed funeral directors could be held unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, where the Supreme Court requires fact-intensive analysis of the state's justifications for the regulation.
- Such regulations might be vulnerable to an Equal Protection or Privileges or Immunities challenge, if courts consider whether evidence actually supports the state's justifications for the regulation.
