Producer
Sazerac UK Limited
Complaint
“I am writing to complain about the packaging and promotional activity for “99 Liqueur” shots, a 50ml alcoholic product at 15% ABV retailing at 99p, produced by Sazerac and launched in the UK in May 2026.
I believe the product, in both its packaging and its promotional campaign, has a particular appeal to under-18s, in breach of Code paragraph 3.2(h). My concern is not with any single element in isolation but with the cumulative effect of several deliberate choices that together create a product whose overall impression is strongly likely to appeal to children and young people under 18.
Packaging design and flavour names that directly replicate children’s sweets
The overall visual identity of the packaging bears a striking resemblance to children’s confectionery rather than adult alcoholic products. Each bottle in the range uses a distinct, saturated primary or secondary colour: vivid green for Apple, bright blue for Blue Raspberry, yellow for Banana, red for Blackcherry, with the liquid inside colour-matched to reinforce the effect. Displayed together, the range presents as a rainbow of colours closely resembling a pick-and-mix sweet display. The flavour names are rendered in large, capitalised lettering in a bold, chunky, rounded typeface – a font style strongly and specifically associated with children’s sweets and toy packaging rather than adult beverages. Several labels also feature small, cartoon-style fruit illustrations. The cumulative visual effect of the colour palette, font style, cartoon imagery and colour-matched liquid is a packaging identity whose overall impression directly replicates the aesthetic of children’s confectionery.
The flavour names themselves compound this. Blue Raspberry, Cherry, Apple, Banana, Strawberry and Pink Lemonade are not profiles associated with adult alcoholic beverages; they are the flavour palette of penny sweets and children’s soft drinks. Blue Raspberry in particular has no real-world fruit equivalent and is almost exclusively found in confectionery and children’s products. This is corroborated by independent press coverage – The Times (May 2026) described one flavour as tasting like Haribo, a children’s sweet brand, suggesting the flavour profile is not merely “broadly appealing” but specifically replicates the taste of products primarily consumed by children.
Taken together, the visual design and flavour identity combine to create packaging whose overall impression is strongly and unmistakably reminiscent of children’s sweets and confectionery.
The “99” name and branding
The product name “99” is inseparable from its ice cream van context. It does not carry an adult cultural reference in the way that, say, “1664” or “Jack Daniel’s” might. Its primary cultural resonance in the UK is a children’s treat. Combined with the activation, the name compounds rather than mitigates the appeal to under-18s.
Price point as a contributing factor
While I note that price alone does not determine whether a product has particular appeal to under-18s, at 99p this product is priced within the range of pocket money purchases. When combined with the above factors, the price point contributes to an overall impression that is accessible to and designed for younger consumers who may have limited funds.
Professional and expert opinion
These concerns are corroborated by professionals and recognised experts with direct experience of the teenagers most at risk, as follows:
Cathy Walker, an education and parenting consultant with more than 20 years’ experience working in schools, said: “These products have been designed in a way that will inevitably appeal to kids with bright colours and a super cheap price tag.” (The Times, May 15)
Harriet Rye, mental health lead at Calderstones School, one of the largest secondary schools in Liverpool, observed: “Those bottles look incredibly enticing, and at pocket money prices. Just the kind of thing that would appeal to the teens I work with.” (The Times, May 15). Ms Rye’s observation is particularly significant as it reflects frontline professional experience of how this product lands with actual secondary school-age teenagers.
Jem Roberts, head of external affairs at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, described the launch as looking “like a product entirely designed to appeal to children while hiding behind a thin ‘nostalgia’ label”, adding: “Sweet flavours, TikTok-style branding, and even an ice-cream van — it’s hardly subtle.” His characterisation of the nostalgia framing as thin is directly relevant to the likely defence Sazerac will advance, and reflects the view of an independent research body that the cumulative effect of these design choices is not accidental. (The Guardian, May 24)
Joe Marley, executive director at Alcohol Change UK, noted that Sazerac has “a track record of going further than others when creating and marketing strong alcohol that tastes like sweets for pocket money prices, using playful approaches, bright colours and cultural trends to embed alcohol in young people’s lives.” He also raised concern about “colourful advertisements in high footfall public spaces such as bus stops and high streets” that risk appealing to children – a dimension of the marketing beyond the campus activation that the Panel may wish to consider. (The Guardian, May 24)”.
Complainant
Member of the public
Decision
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that 99 was a heritage brand which was well established in the US market and was designed to meet the demand of an adult demographic who were attracted to affordable, single-serve products for social occasions. The company did not agree that any element of the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s, in isolation or as part of a cumulative overall impression and stated that it had never received any previous complaints that the product would appeal to under-18s.
The company stated that it was part of a family-owned business with 400 years of experience. The business operated on strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values and as a responsible producer, it sought to comply with all legal and regulatory requirements in the market. The company explained that the 99 brand was launched 30 years ago in the US as ‘99 Bananas’ and had established itself as a popular liqueur and shot brand which had expanded to more than 30 flavours. The company explained that the name referred to the alcoholic strength of the US product which was ’99 proof’ and while the UK version was not of that alcoholic strength, the brand retained the ‘99’ name as an established identity. The company clarified that while the recommended retail price (RRP) was 99p it was not the source of the brand name and shared retail examples where the product was retailed higher than the RRP between £1 and £2. The drink was launched in the UK in 2026 as a full flavour shot with a 15% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and was marketed as a convenience product for adults.
The company stated that the drink was easily identifiable as an adult beverage in a 50ml bottle which was a widely recognised format for ‘miniature’ alcoholic drinks. The bottle was not novel and clearly stated it was an alcoholic drink in plain font with numerous positive alcohol cues on the front and back label. The text was designed to factually describe the flavour and alcoholic content of the drink, did not include onomatopoeic phrases and was displayed in black to ensure clarity and readability. The company highlighted that the colours used on the packaging and liquid matched the corresponding flavour so that consumers could easily identify the flavour of the drink. The company stated that the use of colour in that way would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as it was commonplace to match the colour of the drink to its flavour. Additional complimentary colours were used on the packaging that were muted and pastel which the company stated aligned with Portman Group 3.2(h) guidance as having a ‘lesser appeal’ to under-18s. In addition to this, the colours used on the product were applied uniformly with no luminance, sparkle or glitter effect.
The company stated that fruit flavours had broad appeal to all ages and noted that Portman Group guidance and previous Panel precedent confirmed this position. The company reiterated that the flavours were not named after any confectionary item or well-known sweets and a generic fruit flavour could not be said to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In this instance, the blue raspberry flavour had been recognised as a food flavouring for 60 years and was developed to create a distinction with other red fruit flavours which the Panel had previously deemed acceptable under the Code. The company stated that if the drink was found to have a particular appeal on that basis, many products on the market would be unacceptable.
The company explained that there was no intended link between the drink’s name and ice cream. There was no reference to, or images of, ice cream on the packaging and the flavour was not representative of typical ice cream. While the company did not believe a consumer would link the packaging with ice cream, it noted that the Panel had stated in other precedent cases that ice cream appealed to all age groups.
The company stated that taking the above elements together, there was no basis to conclude that a single element, or the overall impression conveyed by the drink, had a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Chair of the Panel clarified the remit of the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks Code (Code) and explained that the Panel’s decision would only relate to the individual packaging of the drink subject to complaint. The Code did not seek to regulate the price of alcoholic drinks nor the liquid content and therefore the Panel would not consider these elements of the complaint. The Chair also explained that the Panel would consider each flavoured drink on its own merits and not the entire range together as they were sold separately to the consumer.
The Panel considered whether the packaging of 99 Blue Raspberries had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the packaging which was a 50ml plastic bottle with a long neck and screw cap. The Panel considered that the shape and size of the bottle were in keeping with traditional miniature, single serve containers for alcohol that consumers would recognise. The Panel noted that the packaging did not bear resemblance to packaging that was used for soft drinks, nor did it resemble a style of packaging that was typically aimed at under-18s. The Panel considered that the average UK consumer would most likely recognise the packaging as a traditional alcoholic miniature and that, when considered in isolation as the drink was sold, did not create an inherent link with confectionary or a soft drink.
The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the rest of the bottle and discussed the producer’s response which stated that the colour palette for each individual variant reflected the drink’s flavour. The Panel noted that the bright blue colour of the liquid was replicated on the front label to align with the product flavour, which in this case was blue raspberry. The Panel considered the front label in the context of accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) which detailed design elements often used in marketing to appeal to under-18s. In this case, the Panel noted that there were some elements which were likely to create a level of appeal to children such as black keylines used around the flavour font and chunky-style text which had multi-coloured infilled letters that were presented in a simplified style. The Panel considered that such elements were designed to make the text eye-catching and playful but in the wider context of the label represented a small amount of additional colour used outside of the fairly limited blue, pink, black and white palette. While the flavour font depicting the word ‘blue raspberries’ was the largest used on the front label, it was presented with straight-lined and level text. The Panel considered the presentation of the text at length, while noting that it was straight-lined, four of the infilled colours were repeated to create an eye-catching pattern and had a high level of colour contrast. The Panel discussed the pattern and colour contrast and considered that it would appeal to under-18s to an extent as it was simplistic in design and naturally eye-catching.
The Panel then considered the ‘99’ brand name which was depicted with white, black and multi-coloured keylines. The Panel noted that the text inside was black which also contributed to the simplistic nature of design. The Panel discussed the threshold of particular appeal, and the requirement that a design must resonate with under-18s in a way that it does not with adults and considered that while the presentation of the font and colour palette would be attractive to under-18s, it did not create a particular appeal to under-18s above and beyond what would also appeal to an adult.
Alongside the colour palette and font, the Panel discussed the fruit flavour theme as this was the dominant feature of the product. The Panel noted the two-dimensional illustration of a raspberry which further communicated the drink’s flavour and while the design was simple, it was not cartoon-like nor did it have a thick key line and instead used a shadow to provide a distinction with the background. The Panel considered that while fruit flavours would have a level of appeal to children because they were sweet, a ‘blue raspberry’ flavour would have a broad appeal across all age groups as a well-recognised fruit. The Panel assessed the fruit presentation in the context of the rest of the label and noted that there were no other elements which may have appeal to under-18s such as anthropomorphic characters, cartoon drawings, onomatopoeic words, or other highly contrasting colours, outside of the flavour text.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed whether the name ‘99’ created an association with ice-cream as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the term ‘99’ in the context of ice-cream and noted that it referred to a classic British frozen treat which consisted of vanilla soft serve ice-cream in a cone with a chocolate flake garnish. The Panel considered that the term ‘99’ also had other meanings and noted the producer’s response which linked the name to the product’s original American strength ’99 proof’ and the recommended retail price point. The Panel considered the name in the context of the packaging and noted there was nothing on the label which referred to ice-cream either in text or imagery. The Panel acknowledged that the design of the product focused on the ‘blue raspberry’ flavour which was not a flavour typically associated with a ‘99’ ice-cream. When discussing the overall impression of the product, the Panel considered that the blue raspberry flavour would be more readily associated with fruit and the majority blue colour palette compounded that link, as opposed to creating an association with ice-cream which was white and beige. The Panel discussed related precedent under the Code that had been shared as part of the case and discussed the broad point that ice-cream could have a particular appeal to under-18s in some instances depending on the type and presentation, but as a generic theme was more likely to hold a wider appeal. Regardless, in this particular case, the Panel concluded that despite the reference to ‘99’, the packaging did not create any association with ice-cream and therefore could not be considered a factor that contributed to the potential appeal the drink had to under-18s.
The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the product and the cumulative effect of the traditional miniature 50ml bottle, fruit flavour, simple blue raspberry image, black key lines and thick patterned, contrast colour text. The Panel considered that while the presentation of the packaging would have a level of appeal to children, particularly the contrast colours used in the font, the overall impression conveyed did not reach the threshold to create a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
Action by Company
None required.