Producer:
BeatBox Netherlands B.V.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I recently saw this product in Morrisons, positioned next to the soft drinks and energy drinks, specifically not in an aisle where they were otherwise selling alcohol. The product has bright, fun imagery which is likely to appeal to under-18s, and is in a ‘juice box’ format. The Fruit Punch flavour variety in particular has tiki masks with the tongues sticking out which is again very likely to appeal to children. The products are 6.1% vol, with 2 units per 330ml carton. I believe this is highly irresponsible marketing of the product, and highly irresponsible of Morrisons to stock this product, especially in the location where they have chosen to stock it in my local store, at the end of the general soft drinks aisle.”
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) 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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that while it was grateful for the opportunity to respond to the complaint, it did not believe that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company understood that for alcohol marketing to hold a particular appeal to under-18s, the packaging would need to resonate with them more than it would with adults. The company was disappointed to learn that the drinks had been placed within a soft drink retailing space as this was not in line with its instructions to the distributor about responsible retailing. Nonetheless, the company understood that retail placement was not an element that would be considered by the Panel in determining compliance with the Code.
The company did not believe that a Tetra Pak carton with a screw cap had an inherent child-like appeal as Tetra Pak products aimed at children typically utilised a smaller 200ml size carton which usually had straws rather than a screw cap function. The packaging used for Beatbox however, was a larger 330ml size and had a resealable lid which facilitated consumers to drink responsibly as the carton could then be resealed. The drink’s packaging resembled other adult-targeted alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages that were available on the market in Tetra Pak form. While some of the soft drinks available had both adult and child variants, the child-targeted packaging was differentiated by its smaller size and inclusion of a straw. Furthermore, the company explained that the Tetra Pak format was becoming increasingly popular with adult consumers. The company submitted research which reflected that the respondents preferred Tetra Paks because of their use of plant-based materials, the ease of disposal, and the low CO2 emissions. The company highlighted global market data and stated that 506 alcoholic beverages used Tetra Paks in the UK and Europe. The company shared a number of alcoholic beverages in Tetra Pak cartons in use globally to support this point. The company explained that Tetra Paks were used for both alcohol beverages and soft drinks and this was the same as cans or bottles, which were not held to a more rigorous standard. The company stated that the prevalence of Tetra Paks in the wine-based and RTD categories meant that they could not be considered as a ‘novel’ form of packaging.
The company accepted that the design included a bold colour scheme but did not believe that this element would have an inherent appeal to under-18s. The company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal. In previous case precedent, bright and contrasting colours had been found to be acceptable provided they were not combined with other child-like cues. The company stated that bold black lines were used sparingly on the packaging and the design adopted a complex, urban and detailed graphic style which drew on aesthetics associated with music, nightlife and festival culture. In the case of Blue Razzberry, the company explained that the colour palette incorporated various shades of blue and used illustrated teal panels intended to appeal to adults. The company highlighted several precedent cases where contrasting colours were found to be acceptable by the Panel. In this case, the company stated that the rich blue background did not contrast starkly with the blues and greens in the panels of the artwork. The few splashes of yellow used were minimal and the packaging did not include cartoons, animations or other child-like graphics that would create youth appeal.
The visual style was derived from Pop Art and consciously referenced pop-art influences. The company explained that Pop Art was a mature and historically established art movement originating in the UK and US in the 1950s-1970s and would therefore have an adult appeal as it was not indicative of trends in current youth marketing. Pop art included simple, stylised images with strong keylines but could also be visually busy with a number of individual images. The company referenced case precedent where the Panel had found that 1970s and 1980s musical themes did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the same rationale must be applied to BeatBox which celebrated a style of music created in the 1980s. The name was graphically meant to resemble a “boom box” portable stereo and the images included in the side panels were meant to appeal to legal drinking age adults who had experienced that era. The company explained that the keylines, simplicity and scrapbook type of grouping were part of Pop Art which was an adult-oriented art movement.
The company explained that the images which were used across the range of drinks included shaka hand gestures, palm trees, cocktails, surfboards and tiki masks. These were widely recognised as symbols of relaxation, travel, cocktail culture and as adult lifestyle cues. Stylised imagery of everyday objects was a key characteristic of Pop Art and was represented on the packaging as blue raspberries, cocktails, microphones, a large eye, leaves and flowers which had broad appeal across all ages. The company stated the complex detail helped the imagery present in a mature way. Furthermore, there was no inclusion of elements which would be associated with children’s culture, such as cartoon characters, simplified graphics, mascots or playful anthropomorphic imagery on the label.
The company stated that the reliance on keylines as a basis for finding the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(h) would be contrary to previous Panel precedents and placed the company at a competitive disadvantage. The company referenced several precedents which demonstrated that products which employed thick keylines around text did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the precedent examples demonstrated that the Panel had applied an unfair standard to the BeatBox packaging particularly in regard to the use of bold keylines and shading. The company disagreed that all the fonts used on the packaging were ‘chunky’ and noted that there were different types used on the label. The name ‘BeatBox’ employed a straight-line font and whilst the font used on the flavour ‘Blue Razzberry’ could fairly be described as chunky the company said it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that similar fonts had been used on products which were found to be acceptable and so the adverse decision against BeatBox was arbitrary and without evidentiary support.
The company explained that the name ‘Beatbox’ was firmly rooted in adult culture and was a recognised form of vocal percussion that emerged in the 1980s and was closely associated with music, nightlife and as a performance piece. ‘Beatboxing’ was not a new phenomenon and was used in hip hop music, as a standalone art form and through a cappella groups and EDM music. The name ‘Beatbox’ was therefore not a fun and playful word created by a younger generation but instead had a long history with those who were middle-aged. The company explained that music was important to the brand’s identity with the name and musical cues chosen to appeal to adults. While ‘Beatbox’ was an energetic word, it was not child-coded and could be distinguished from other case precedents which had overtly created a link between a product name and a child’s confectionery item. The brand name was intended to resemble a ‘boom box’ stereo from the 1980s which had been in use when ‘beatboxing’ was developed. ‘Beatboxing’ would appeal to middle-aged adults.
The company had also sought advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service regarding the designs as part of its due diligence and sought to implement feedback. The company stated that it did not consider Blue Raspberry to be a flavour that had a particular appeal to under-18s as raspberries typically had a tart rather than sweet taste. The company explained that Blue Raspberry had gained popularity in the 1970s and was a nostalgic flavour that had a strong resonance with older generations. The name was presented as ‘Blue Razzberry’ which the company stated would not have a particular appeal to under-18s based only on the intentionally misspelled word as many adult products included misspelling. The company added that Blue Raspberry was a flavour that was found in many alcoholic drinks available on the UK market. The company highlighted several precedents where packaging which had sweet, fruity flavours and cartoon imagery which were not found to contribute to the products having a particular appeal to under-18s. The use of fruit flavours had been found compliant on other packaging even if that packaging had cross over with standard soft drink containers. Furthermore, the company stated that the spelling of ‘Razzberry’ would not contribute to the packaging having a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the finding contradicted previous precedent, and noted many adult items existed that used intentional misspelling to appeal to adults.
The company explained that BeatBox was purchased by an affiliate of a founding member of the Portman Group in February 2026 and at the time of purchase, the purchaser was unaware of the ongoing complaint. The company was concerned that previously unarticulated rules were applied to the packaging rather than those set forth in the Code and through previous Panel precedent. The company stated that would be fundamentally unfair allowing its competitors to use designs, graphics and colours which it could not. The company stated that those governed by the Code had a legitimate expectation to treat the Code as a complete and accurate statement of the requirements, whereas the Panel had introduced an ‘I know it when I see it standard’.
The company explained that it had requested the complaint be resolved informally with mutually agreed designs and that this request had been repeated by the purchaser when the complaint was brought to its attention. However, the company stated that the Portman Group had repeatedly refused the requests which put it in a difficult position to fulfil its obligations to supply products to wholesalers. Furthermore, the company stated that it understood the Panel Chair could deem a case suitable to proceed through the Informal Resolution Process at any time and noted that if that was possible, the company would be ready to engage with the Portman Group.
The company was concerned that it was the Panel itself rather than the complainant that had raised concerns under Code rule 3.1 This was procedurally unfair. The company stated that the packaging was unambiguously an alcohol product and referenced previous case precedent which demonstrated that novel packaging did not have an inherent appeal to under-18s in isolation. Similarly, where a drink was clearly alcoholic it did not need to present the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) in words. In this case, the packaging of BeatBox included positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, presented as ‘6.1% Vol’ on the top of three sides of the label, with ‘contains alcohol’ on the front label as well. There was a ‘drink responsibly’ message, a pregnancy warning logo and a don’t drink and drive logo alongside a QR code which connected to responsibledrinking.eu and contained a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The packaging exceeded the standards set by UK labelling law and included the ABV on the top of two panels, in a font size the same as the flavour name, with white numbers with black keylines to draw attention to it. The company highlighted case precedents where the Panel had made suggestions to producers where it believed the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be enhanced but had found no breach of the Code. The company requested that the Panel exercise that option in this case if it believed that the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be improved.
The Panel’s assessment
3.1
The Panel raised Code rule 3.1 to consider whether the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the drink’s packaging with absolute clarity.
The Panel assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 330ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that at present in the UK, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and the packaging format was more typically associated with soft drinks aimed at adults and children. The Panel noted the company’s contention that there were 506 flavoured alcohol and wine brands across the UK and continental Europe in 2025 using that packaging format. The Panel noted that the company’s evidence included a document entitled ‘Wines in Tetra Pak in USA’ and included two further pages of ‘RTD alcohol in Tetra Pak in USA’. However, out of the examples shared by the company, the Panel noted that only three of the Tetra Pak products were labelled for sale in the UK market with one screenshot highlighting that one of the products was the first UK RTD sold in Tetra packaging in 2025, further suggesting that they were a new and novel type of packaging in the UK market. While the wider context of the global market was noted, the Panel’s decisions and remit applied to the UK market, and its consideration was based on how an average UK consumer would perceive a product. The Panel acknowledged that the use of Tetra Paks for alcoholic drinks was likely to expand from the current small number in the UK market but at the time of consideration, and in the context of the company’s own market evidence, alcohol beverages in Tetra Paks were still relatively new and represented a small subsection of the UK market. The Panel noted that the purpose of the Code was not to stifle such packaging innovation as long the design of such products complied with the rules.
The Panel discussed the recent precedent regarding VK Squashka, an alcoholic RTD in a 500ml Tetra Pak format, published in May 2026 and shared with the company as part of proceedings. As part of that decision, the Panel had also noted that the Tetra Park format was a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel noted that the VK Squashka precedent reflected the Panel’s application of Code rule 3.1 where it had considered the overall impression conveyed by the product in the context that a Tetra Pak was not a packaging format that UK consumers would readily associated with alcohol and in cases where such product packaging incorporated a number of negative alcohol cues, the packaging needed to ensure that it communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel also discussed precedents raised by the company, including Beavertown Bloody ‘Ell and Loose Juice, where the company had questioned the Panel’s decisions not to find the products in breach of the Code despite recommending improvements to improve the absolute clarity of the products’ alcoholic nature. The Panel stated that every case would be considered on its own merits and a notable difference in this case was the Tetra Pak format which had a significant crossover with soft drinks that UK consumers would not necessarily associate with alcohol, whereas 330ml cans were a common form of packaging in the UK alcohol market. The Panel stated that this did not mean that one format of packaging was preferable over the other, instead, it meant that producers needed to be mindful of how UK consumers would perceive such packaging and consider how this could impact compliance under the Code, particularly rules 3.1 and 3.2(h).
Taking into account the available evidence, the Panel reiterated that the Tetra Pak format was a novel style of packaging which the average UK consumer would not readily link with alcohol. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.1 which stated that novel containers needed to work harder to ensure that a drink’s alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity to minimise potential consumer confusion. It was therefore important that recognisable positive alcohol cues were on the label and presented in a clear and unambiguous way. The Panel noted that the guidance stated that the Panel would consider the number of ‘positive’ cues against the number of ‘negative’ cues when determining whether a product’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The guidance listed a number of ‘negative’ cues as a warning to producers which included ‘dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery on packaging, novel packaging, overly busy design, cartoon-like illustrations and primary colours’. Guidance stated that no one element would make a drink’s packaging compliant with rule 3.1 and if the cumulative impact of negative cues outweighed the positive ones (such as the ABV, shape of container etc.), the Panel could find the product in breach of the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label and noted that the drink’s name ‘Beatbox’ and flavour descriptor ‘Blue Razzberry’ were the most prominent words on the label. The Panel considered that ‘Beatbox’ would generally be understood as a reference to a form of vocal percussion that involved using the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to mimic drum machines and other musical instruments. The Panel discussed that this was the primary meaning of the word which had been acknowledged in the company’s response to the complaint, where it explained that the name was inspired by the vocal style of music. The Panel considered that on that basis, ‘Beatbox’ was not intended to be a phrase or word that consumers would typically associate with an alcoholic drink. The Panel considered the next most prominent words on the front of the packaging which was ‘Blue Razzberry’. The Panel acknowledged that blue raspberry was a flavour used in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drink flavours. However, the Panel expressed concern that in the context of a novel container, the musically themed name and emphasis of the fruit flavour could cause confusion as to whether the drink contained alcohol if not further qualified with positive alcohol cues.
The Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that there were some positive cues, including the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) presented as ‘6.1% vol’ on two sides of the packaging. The Panel noted that while the ABV was positioned at the top of the label, it was in smaller text than the brand name and flavour. While the Panel noted that the front label included the text ‘contains alcohol’ at the bottom, this was presented in a relatively small white font and was difficult to read due to the size and the contrast of the blue background. Alongside this, the label contained abstract and brightly coloured artwork which wrapped around the sides of the container to create a busy visual pattern and distracted from the communication of the alcohol related information. The Panel noted there were some positive alcohol cues on the reverse label which included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo, a don’t drink and drive warning logo and unit content information, however these were presented in small difficult to read white text at the bottom. The Panel noted that above this information there was white text outlined in a thick black keyline which stated that the drink was ‘best serve chilled’ and the simple descriptor ‘drink’. The Panel considered that a consumer’s eye would naturally be drawn to this information which was far more prominent and easier to read and did not indicate the product’s alcoholic nature compared to the small text at the very bottom of the panel which was difficult to read.
The Panel noted the QR code where consumers could connect to responsibledrinking.eu which contained advice on drinking and moderation, as well as a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The Panel did not believe that a QR code should be used as an indication to consumers that a product contained alcohol. QR codes were present on a range of products, not just alcoholic drinks, and it should not be incumbent on a consumer to scan a product to seek out positive alcohol cues if the primary packaging contained a significant number of cues which detracted from a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel carefully considered the above elements to determine the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. While there were some positive alcohol cues on the label, most of them were difficult to read and were markedly less visible than the other text which emphasised the word ‘drink’, fruit flavour and link to music. This impression was compounded by the use of bright colours and busy, visually distracting imagery which further detracted from the clear communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature. In the context of 3.1 guidance, the Panel noted that the product incorporated multiple negative cues that had been listed as a warning to producers to be mindful of when ensuring that a product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the company’s point that guidance was not clear enough when detailing what ‘work harder’ entailed under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered that current guidance was clear on what the Panel would consider in terms of positive and negative cues and how these elements could impact the overall impression conveyed. The Panel noted that case precedents also reflected how the rule may be applied, particularly in cases such as VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Blossom Hill Spritz, all of which highlighted how negative cues could detract from clarity regarding a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the company’s purchaser, a member of the Portman Group, had approved and contributed to Portman Group guidance over a number of years. The Panel noted that the rules of the Code were broadly written, with supporting guidance, to provide a degree of flexibility so that standards were not overly prescriptive and reflected the spirit of what the Code was seeking to achieve; a balance between creative and innovative marketing, whilst protecting consumers from harm. The rules could not be written to provide absolute certainty and dictate a bright line of compliance but Portman Group guidance, Panel precedent and the Advisory Service were designed to assist producers in understanding how the Code could be applied. The Panel encouraged the company to liaise with the Portman Group if it believed that improvements could be made to current guidance to assist the industry further.
The Panel noted the company’s assurance that the product met the minimum legal standards in the UK. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to ensure that positive alcohol cues, such as the product’s ABV and alcohol descriptor, were clearly visible, easy to read and not undermined by negative cues such as novel packaging, an overly busy design, a dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery, cartoon like-illustrations and primary colours, all of which were present in this case. Therefore, on balance, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the name, fruit flavour, colourful, busy label and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink. Alongside this, a significant amount of the alcohol information that had been included was in small difficult to read white font on a blue background that was less prominent than the fruit flavour and busy visual artwork, in the context of novel packaging that was currently more commonly associated with soft drinks. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to communicate a product’s alcoholic nature to minimise consumer confusion. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and 4 found the product in breach Code rule 3.1.
In respect of the company’s contention that it was procedurally unfair for the Panel to raise Code rule 3.1, the Panel noted Code paragraph 5.24:
The Panel meets to consider the product’s packaging or promotion after having an opportunity to study the dossier. The Panel is not bound to restrict its consideration of the product’s packaging or promotion to the narrow terms of the complaint but may consider the packaging or promotion under any section of the Code that it considers relevant, regardless of whether this section relates to the specific complaint or has been highlighted in the dossier by the Code Secretariat or otherwise.
This had been communicated to the company in writing at the beginning of the complaint process. The Panel noted that roughly 52 case precedents had been referenced during the case, many by the company, and around 40% of the cases cited included the Panel raising additional Code rules of its own accord. Regardless of this, the Panel considered that the company had been given ample opportunity to respond to the concerns raised under rule 3.1 prior to the Panel making its final decision and it had done so. The Panel explained that such a mechanism provided producers with more regulatory certainty as the entirety of the Code was considered rather than relying on multiple complaints and hearings to address any potential issues. In addition to this, the Panel explained that, as an independent body, it was important for it to address packaging and or/ marketing that, in its view, did not meet the standards set by the Code if such matters had been brought to its attention via the formal investigation route to ensure that high standards of responsible naming, packaging and promotion were applied consistently.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted its decision under Code rule 3.1 and reiterated that at the time of consideration in 2026, Tetra Paks were not well-known containers for an alcoholic drink and were more commonly associated with both adult and children’s soft drinks in the UK market. The Panel discussed the company’s response that ‘Beatbox’ had a screw cap mechanism which differentiated it from soft drinks in Tetra Pak packaging targeted at children as these drinks required the use of a straw to access the liquid. The Panel acknowledged that both adult and children’s soft drinks were common on the UK market in a Tetra Pak format and were therefore not exclusively used for children’s drinks meaning that a Tetra Pak did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s. However, while many soft drinks for children in Tetra Pak containers included a straw, there were also child-targeted products which had a screw cap style lid similar to Beatbox. The Panel therefore reminded alcoholic drink producers that when using a novel container in alcohol marketing, particularly a packaging style that was also used for children’s drinks, caution should be exercised. In such circumstances, the Panel explained that alcohol marketing needed to ensure that the presentation of the packaging had an adult appeal and did not particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel considered the company’s contention that the Panel had inconsistently applied Code rule 3.2(h) across a multitude of design aspects which included the use of keylines, font style, fruit flavour, contrasting colours and artwork. The Panel noted that the company’s response discussed each of these individual elements as separate points to convey the assertion that each aspect did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that guidance to the rule made it clear that both the Panel and the Advisory Service would assess the overall impression conveyed by packaging and specifically ‘this can mean that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, may change when combined with other elements and create an overall impression which is non-compliant.’ ( Guidance Note – 3.2(h) – Particular Appeal to under-18s, November 2023) The Panel noted that while it would provide analysis regarding its reasoning relating to each design feature, its conclusion was based on the overall impression conveyed when all of the elements were considered on a cumulative basis.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the brand name ‘Beatbox’ referenced a vocal musical style which was popularised in the 1980s. The Panel agreed that ‘Beatbox’ as a name or reference to musical style would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as it was an established form of music that appealed to a range of ages. Furthermore, the Panel considered that some under-18s would be unaware of its meaning or the music style. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label which was brightly coloured with ‘Beatbox’ displayed in large white text with a thick black keyline vertically on the front label. The Panel discussed that while ‘Beatbox’ as a reference to a musical style would not create a particular appeal to under-18s, the typography which employed three thick contrasting keylines meant it stood out and would be particularly eye-catching for those under-18 as a style. The Panel discussed that inclusion of thick keylines around a chunky font was a feature often used in marketing aimed at under-18s because children found bold keylines attractive as they developed visual perception skills as noted in guidance. In those instances, the attraction for children was not necessarily dictated by the meaning of the word, but instead how it was presented with thick bold outlined text being highly appealing.
The company highlighted that the Panel had permitted other RTDs in previous cases* to use keylines. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that the overwhelming majority of cases analysed were prior to 2022, with one exception cited from 2025. The Panel noted that accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) had been subject to an extensive revision in November 2023 when the Panel and the Portman Group had jointly commissioned Kids Industries, a marketing agency with specific expertise on marketing products aimed at children, to provide insights on marketing techniques that are used to appeal to children and teenagers outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel discussed 3.2(h) guidance (section 4, page 4) which provided detailed guidance on areas producers should be mindful of under the rule. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that consideration of keylines had featured in Panel decisions from around 2015 onwards. However, guidance from the Portman Group on how Code rule 3.2(h) could be interpreted was extensively developed in 2023 and had led to the current version of guidance which was its most detailed version to date and was the first version to include advice about the use of keylines. The Panel acknowledged that regulatory consistency was important, but the Panel also considered that self-regulatory standards, including guidance behind a rule, could not stay static, and it was important for accompanying guidance to reflect a changing environment, in marketing, in product development, and in society generally. The guidance update had led to enhanced clarification for the Panel in its application of Code rule 3.2(h) and the Panel noted that there were numerous precedents after 2023 which reflected a consistent application of Code rule 3.2(h) that had been shared with the company as part of the case but had not been referenced as part of its response. In particular, the Panel discussed recent precedents including VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Cactus Jacks, all of which included reference to how thick keylines could impact the overall impression conveyed under Code rule 3.2(h). However, the Panel emphasised that while precedents could provide a guide for other producers, every case would be considered on its own merits and ultimately, the overall impression conveyed by a product could lead to instances where a straight read across was not always possible. In cases where interpretation may not be clear-cut, the Panel encouraged producers to use the Portman Group’s Advisory Service. While such advice was not binding on the Panel, and could not provide guaranteed assurance, it was a service that could help producers mitigate risk under the Code.
The Panel noted that the company had sought free, confidential advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service, prior to the purchaser’s acquisition, and the advice had been shared with the Panel under Code paragraph 5.25. The Panel discussed the advice that the company had received, initially only regarding the Blue Razzberry variant which stated:
“We do remain concerned about the name and style of the blue raspberries as well as the spelling ‘razzberry’. We are concerned these elements are likely to have a youthful appeal. In the Advisory Service we will always err on the side of caution and so to reduce risk under the Code, we would recommend the raspberry images are depicted in a more realistic way with a more straight lined and less ‘bubble’ style of writing the flavour with the correct spelling”.
The Panel noted that the Advisory Service had also stated:
“We have previously explained that black, bold keylines can contribute to packaging having a particular appeal to under-18s and we consider ‘beatbox’ quite a playful and fun word”.
The Panel noted that the company had been advised to make a few changes to the design due to the risk the design posed under the Code. While the company was not bound by the advice, and had chosen not to implement the suggested changes, the Panel considered the advice demonstrated that the company was aware of the potential risk of the design.
The Panel then discussed the flavour ‘Blue Razzberry’ and noted that while it would have broad appeal to all ages in isolation, children were predisposed to find sweet and fruit flavours more attractive. Furthermore, ‘razzberry’ was intentionally misspelled which characterised the flavour as being more child-like and juvenile and this was further compounded as the flavour was presented in a bubble-writing style of font with a black keyline. On balance, the Panel therefore considered that the presentation of the drink’s name and the sweet fruit flavour would enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s in the context of a Tetra Pak container which was also a format used for children’s soft drinks. The company highlighted that the Panel had previously permitted other RTDs and alcohol beverages to reference fruit flavours, even when the packaging was similar to that of soft drinks, such as 330ml cans. The Panel reiterated that a Tetra Pak was a novel form of packaging for alcoholic drinks in the UK market in 2026. The precedents that the company had cited were primarily products that were either in 330ml cans or bottles that were more established in the UK market as alcohol packaging formats. The Panel stated that when new forms of novel packaging entered the UK market, each needed to be assessed on its own merits, drawing from precedent, the overall impression conveyed and the available evidence at the time. The Panel noted that in the context of novel packaging sharing a packaging format with children’s and adult soft drinks, a sweet fruit flavour in that specific context would be a contributary factor enhancing the appeal a product would have to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the imagery used on the packaging and acknowledged the company’s statement that it had been inspired by the ‘Pop Art’ movement of the 1950s-1970s. The Panel noted that the imagery included abstract shapes such as lightning bolts, cocktail glasses, microphones, rectangles and swirls alongside a large eye, raspberries and leaves. While the presentation of some of the items was abstract, the overall design was visually busy with the artwork presented in a basic cartoon-like style with simple illustrations and black keylines featuring on all of them. The Panel considered that this meant the images were less stylised than classic ‘Pop Art’ artworks, presented less maturely and meant that an intended reference to ‘pop art’ was not necessarily obvious without the company’s explanation. The Panel considered that the individual artwork features of a large eye, microphones, cocktail glasses, raspberries and leaves would not necessarily resonate with under-18s more than adults, though nonetheless they would have a level of appeal to them. The Panel assessed the images which did not include any intricate detail and were presented as simple, and sometimes fantastical, designs which increased their resemblance to art styles used in children’s media which often had simple designs with uncomplicated cartoon imagery and minimal details. The Panel noted that the images, and in particular the random placement of large stylised eyes and lightning bolts, were additionally presented in a haphazard, busy, style very reminiscent of a child’s or teenager’s doodling, which, in the Panel’s view, would further resonate with under 18s as was consistent with similar precedent from Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings. The Panel highlighted that alongside this, the imagery included the use of bright primary and secondary colours, yellow, blue, and pink which created a level of contrast against the navy and teal packaging. The Panel was of the view that these were all elements that would resonate with children who would find bright contrasting colours and high luminance levels stimulating and eye-catching as reflected in guidance.
Taking the above elements in combination, the Panel concluded that the typography of the brand name ‘Beatbox’ and bubble-writing of the ‘Blue Razzberry’ flavour both with thick black keylines, misspelled word of ‘razzberry’, novel style packaging that was not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, sweet fruit flavour, bright, contrasting colours and simple cartoon images created a cumulative impact that meant the overall impression conveyed had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel reiterated that no single element in isolation had necessarily caused a breach and that it was the cumulative impact of all of the features that had led to a breach of the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel welcomed the company’s intent to redesign the product to ensure that the design not only reflected the purchaser’s internal marketing standards but also the minimum standards required by the Code.
Finally, the Panel noted the company’s complaint that Portman Group’s Secretariat had declined to move the case to an informal resolution route and therefore prevented the case from being resolved in a swift and mutually agreeable manner. The Chair highlighted clause 5.13 onwards in the Code of Practice which made it clear that the decision as to whether a case should proceed informally or formally was made by the Chair. In this particular case, the case was not considered suitable for informal resolution as it had been deemed potentially precedent setting and not a clear-cut breach of the Code. The complexity and length of the final decision reflected why the case had required consideration by the full Panel and was not suitable for informal resolution.
Action by Company:
Packaging amended after working with the Advisory Service
* Burst Blue Raspberry (2025), Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon (2022), Dragon Soop Strawberry & Lime (2019), Dragon Soop range (2022), Hoola Hooch (2018), Beavertown’s Bloody Ell (2015), Gamma Ray (2015), Neck Oil (2019), multiple Tiny Rebel cases from 2021, Show Off (2019), Buoyancy Aid (2020), Frosty Jack’s Cider (2020), Flagingo Electric Blue Gin Liqueur (2022), Flamingo Tears (2019), Pixie Tears (2019), Desperados (2018), Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake (2011), Stiffy’s Kola Kubez (2011), Funky Monkey Vodka Shots (2006)