One thing about this I don't understand after reading (maybe I missed it) is this:<p>It sounds like all the state needs to do is put in place the <i>ability</i> to veto any decision of a licensing board. It doesn't actually need to veto anything. The ability for the state to veto alone ensures that the boards are protected from suits. So if a licensing board takes anti-competitive action but the state does not veto the action (despite having the mechanism to do so) what protects the free market in that case? The business would now have to sue the state, rather than the licensing board?