Defending against allegations of selling alcohol to minors requires sophisticated strategies that challenge every element of the state’s case while demonstrating the establishment’s commitment to preventing underage drinking through comprehensive compliance measures. The affirmative defense of reasonable reliance on apparently valid identification provides the strongest protection when establishments can prove they inspected an ID that appeared genuine and showed the buyer to be 21 or older, even if later discovered to be fraudulent. Documentation becomes critical in these defenses, requiring evidence that employees followed proper ID checking procedures, used appropriate verification equipment such as ID scanners or verification guides, and made reasonable judgments based on the identification presented. Challenging the validity of the minor’s participation in the sting operation can succeed when procedural violations occur, such as using minors who appear substantially older than their actual age or fail to follow TABC protocols for compliance checks. The defense may demonstrate that the minor misrepresented their age through deceptive conduct beyond presenting false identification, such as lying about their birthdate when asked or being accompanied by adults who vouched for their age. Procedural defenses examine whether TABC agents properly supervised the minor during the operation, as unsupervised minors or those encouraged to lie beyond legal parameters can invalidate the resulting charges. Mistaken identity defenses apply when establishments can prove the actual server was properly trained and did not serve the minor, but confusion arose regarding which employee completed the transaction. The establishment’s training programs and compliance history provide context showing isolated incidents don’t reflect systematic failures, particularly when extensive preventive measures were in place. Technical defenses may challenge the chain of custody for evidence, particularly in cases involving fake IDs where the physical evidence must be properly preserved and authenticated for use in proceedings. Entrapment defenses, while difficult, may succeed when evidence shows law enforcement exceeded legal bounds in encouraging or facilitating the violation beyond merely providing the opportunity. Constitutional challenges to the stop or investigation can invalidate evidence obtained through improper procedures, particularly when targeting appears discriminatory or exceeds statutory authority. The defense can present evidence of industry-leading compliance measures that exceed minimum requirements, demonstrating good faith efforts that should mitigate penalties even if technical violations occurred. Expert testimony regarding ID authentication difficulty and the sophistication of modern fake IDs helps establish the reasonableness of employee actions in challenging circumstances. Comparative evidence showing similar establishments’ practices and violation rates can contextualize isolated incidents within broader industry challenges. Through comprehensive preparation and strategic presentation of these defenses, establishments can achieve dismissals, reduced penalties, or favorable settlements that preserve their ability to continue operations.