Producer:
Sazerac UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
‘The product just looks like a toy. It’s shaped like a bright blue tennis ball, the name BuzzBall sounds like an energy drink or action hero, and its flavoured Berry Cherry Limeade (which is clearly aimed at children. Which grown up person chooses to drink something of this flavour?). Products like this should not be on sale in the UK. They are clearly appealing to underage drinkers. I appreciate it’s hard to monitor off licences who sell alcohol to children under the age of 18 — they are everywhere in London — but to think it was being handed out for free from an arcade machine in such a public space is appalling.’
Decision:
3.2(a) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis.
NOT UPHELD
3.2(f) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
NOT UPHELD
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.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it was a family-owned business with nearly 400 years of history and operated with strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values. As a responsible drinks producer, the company sought to comply with all legal and industry requirements in multiple jurisdictions globally with a key focus on appropriate marketing.
The company explained that the Berry Cherry Limeade version of the drink was added to its product line in 2026 and was sold through licensed retail premises. The flavour profile was a combination of cherry and blue raspberry with hints of lemon and lime and was designed to meet market demand for fruit flavoured ready-to-drink cocktails. The company confirmed that the drink brand was marketed solely at adults of a legal drinking age.
The company explained that BuzzBallz was a ready-to-drink premixed spirit which had been established as one of the leading products in its category in multiple markets since its creation in 2009. The company noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair had raised a Metro article for discussion regarding the origin of the drink’s name. The company explained that it understood the name was created in two parts with ‘buzz’ referring to a childhood nickname of the original founder and ‘ball’ as a reference to the near-spherical plastic container synonymous with the brand. The company explained that the previous complaint and decision from 2022 were processed prior to it acquiring the brand and it assumed that the information provided then was an accurate account. The company noted that it was not possible to verify the information provided to the journalist in the article but that it was possible recollections of the name’s origin could differ. The company stated that while recollections could differ, this did not impact the name’s compliance under the Code as this was determined by the product’s marketing.
The company stated that the drink did not resemble a toy in any meaningful way and it was apparent that it was a beverage because of the stainless-steel lid and ring pull at the top. The company highlighted that the packaging included clear white text on the front and back label that indicated it was an alcoholic beverage including the word ‘cocktails’, the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), references to an ‘alcoholic drink’ and numerous responsible drinking messages including the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines, unit content information and pregnancy warning logo.
The company stated that the shape of the container did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company explained that the product had a near spherical shape which did not resonate with under-18s as opposed to adults and that was accepted by the Panel in its previous 2022 decision. The company highlighted the Panel’s previous conclusion which had stated that any similarity to a ball was passing and not identical. The company emphasised that the difference was further compounded by the ring pull top lid and flat bottom which enabled the container to act as a receptacle for liquid and was therefore clearly not intended to be used as a toy. The company added that the packaging did not include any interactive elements or effects and while the shape may be considered innovative, this did not mean it had a particular appeal to under-18s by virtue of being novel. The company stated that it was not aware of any children’s product that had similarity to the drink and that the packaging made it clear it was an alcoholic drink for adult consumption.
The company stated that the blue colour of the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and instead allowed consumers to easily identify the flavour of the drink, as blue distinguished the raspberry flavour from other red berry fruit flavours. The company explained that the packaging had no contrasting colours and the blue colour was not neon in appearance and was uniformly applied with no luminance, sparkle or glitter effect. The only other colour used on the packaging was a white font to ensure clarity of the text so consumers could easily ascertain the drink contained alcohol. Furthermore, the company highlighted that the use of the colour blue in alcoholic drinks was widespread and commonplace in the market.
The company explained that the font used on the label was sharp, minimalist and was intentionally designed to portray key information in an uncluttered way. It was not childlike or bright and had no high contrast or thick keyline elements. There were no characters or any other imagery on the packaging that could have particular appeal to under-18s and the pared back simple design demonstrated that the drink was targeted at adults.
The company disagreed that the name related to an energy drink or action hero and stated that even if ‘buzz’ was associated with those concepts, it did not mean the drink had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the packaging clearly communicated that the product was an alcoholic drink and energy drinks were usually packaged in cans commonly with contrasting bright colours as part of the packaging design. Similarly, the company was not aware of any action hero themed drinks on the market but maintained in both instances such products did not bare similarity to BuzzBallz.
The company rejected that the flavour of the drink would have a particular appeal to under-18s and reiterated that there were several blue raspberry alcoholic drinks on the market which were popular with adults. The company stated that sweet fruit flavours could have broad appeal across all age ranges and was consistent with Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) as well as previous precedents from Panel decisions. Furthermore, the company explained that the drink was not named after any well-known confectionery items but even if it were, that would not necessarily mean the drink had a particular appeal to under-18s. On that basis, the company stated it did not believe the drink’s name or packaging was in breach Code rule 3.2(h).
The company noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code Rule 3.2(a) for consideration. The company explained that the drink’s name did not give undue emphasis to the drink’s higher alcoholic nature or intoxicating effect. The company stated that while the ABV of the drink was made clear to consumers, it was not incorporated into the drink’s name to become the main message. The company stated that ‘BuzzBallz’ was the most prominent wording on the packaging with the other aspects of the label, such as the flavour and drink descriptor, given equal prominence. The company explained that there was no emotive or exaggerated language used nor were additional statements or imagery which alluded to the strength of the drink. The company did not consider that the drink was particularly high strength for the product category but nevertheless the alcoholic content was displayed in factual, neutral terms. Furthermore, the company stated that the word ‘buzz’ could be used to describe a feeling of excitement and in the context of the Panel’s decision in 2022 where it stated that the name did not suggest that it could change a consumer’s mood or behaviour it therefore followed the word could not suggest it placed undue emphasis on an intoxicating effect.
The company noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code Rule 3.2(f) for consideration. The company disagreed that ‘BuzzBallz’ or the word ‘buzz’ encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The company noted that the packaging had multiple responsible drinking messages and contained 2.7 units of alcohol, well within the recommendation of four units for single serve containers. The company stated that ‘buzz’ only appeared as part of the brand name and there was no indication on the packaging or within wider marketing that suggested it could change a person’s mood or behaviour by giving them a ‘buzz’. The company did not agree that the packaging implied that the drink could give a person a ‘buzz’. However, even if ‘buzz’ was interpreted in such a way, a person could describe having a ‘buzz’ in several different circumstances, including when busy or, more commonly, excited. Additionally, the packaging did not contain any words or imagery which referred to a lengthy period of consumption and the flat bottom container would not encourage a ‘down in one’ style of consumption.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(a)
The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair explained that at the preliminary investigation stage, Code rule 3.2(a) had been raised in relation to the drink’s name and specifically the question of whether ‘buzz’ in the context of a ready-to-drink (RTD) with an alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 13.5% placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the product. The Panel Chair acknowledged the previous decision made about the drink’s name under Code rule 3.2(j) in 2022 whereby the Panel had ruled that the product name was not in breach of the Code. The Chair confirmed that the Panel would have due regard to the precedent set, however, the Chair considered that there was merit in discussing the name under Code rule 3.2(a) which had not been discussed in 2022.
The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that the drink had an ABV of 13.5% which was stronger than the average RTD strength for the category defined as 4.6% ABV in accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(a). On that basis, the Panel recognised that BuzzBallz Berry Cherry Limeade had a higher than average strength ABV within the RTD category which meant that both clauses of Code rule 3.2(a) would be applicable for review. The Panel discussed the wording of Code rule 3.2(a) and noted that a product could not place undue emphasis on its higher alcoholic strength and/or the product’s intoxicating effect. The Panel noted that a product which had a higher than average strength ABV compared to its category would not automatically breach the Code and as always, the overall impression conveyed would determine compliance with the rule.
The Panel discussed the name ‘Buzzballz’ and specifically whether the use of the word ‘buzz’ in the brand name placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the product. The Panel noted accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(a) which stated that any product name which alluded to the intoxicating effect of alcohol should be avoided as it would go beyond factually communicating the drink’s strength. The Panel discussed the company’s response and noted the point that the word ‘buzz’ was commonly used to describe a feeling of excitement and that such a suggestion did not then infer that undue emphasis had been placed on an intoxicating effect. The company highlighted that as the Panel had already ruled that the product did not suggest a change in a consumer’s mood and behaviour then it would also follow that as a potential ‘feeling’ a complaint against the product could not be upheld for suggesting it would provide an intoxicating effect.
The Panel considered the precedent that had formed part of the 2022 BuzzBallz decision under Code rule 3.2(j). As part of its original decision, the Panel had noted that the definition of ‘buzz’ could refer to the slight intoxication from consuming alcohol or drugs and could also refer to the feeling of being excited. As part of this precedent, the Panel had specifically concluded that there was nothing on the packaging which suggested that consumption of the product would generate a ‘buzz’. The Panel acknowledged that the packaging, aside from the flavour name, had not changed since 2022.
At the preliminary investigation stage, the Chair of the Panel had raised a Metro Article originally published in November 2025 and had been updated in January 2026 which suggested that the founder of Buzzballz, Merrilee Kick, named the products in reference to the feeling it would evoke and the shape. In response to the 2022 decision, the original founder had explained that the ‘buzz’ part of the product name had been chosen in reference to their childhood nickname as a track and field athlete who would ‘buzz’ past people on the track. In response to the Metro Article, the current producer, Sazerac, confirmed that the submission from 2022 was prepared by the founder and assumed that legal advisers would have ensured it was an accurate account. In any case, the producer highlighted that the origin of the name was not determinative when assessing compliance with the Code as the word ‘buzz’ itself was acceptable in the context of the 2022 Panel’s decision regarding 3.2(j) which concluded that the name ‘Buzzballz’ did not suggest it could change a consumer’s mood or behaviour. The Panel discussed the Metro Article and noted that it was difficult to ascertain with a level of certainty exactly what the origin story was in relation to the product name. Regardless of this, the Panel acknowledged that the acceptability of the word ‘buzz’ would be considered on its own merit and in the context of the case at hand.
The Panel debated the meaning of the word ‘buzz’ in the context of an alcoholic drink and acknowledged that the noun usage of the word to receive a ‘buzz’ from alcohol specifically referred to a ‘feeling’ of excitement or happiness which had been induced by a stimulant. In the context of the 2022 BuzzBallz decision, the Panel was aware that it had already concluded that the product did not suggest that consumption of the drink would generate or cause such a feeling under Code rule 3.2(j). The Panel noted that as part of that decision it had stated that the word ‘buzz’ could refer to the feeling of being slightly intoxicated but had concluded that in the context of the packaging there was nothing which suggested consumption of the product would change a consumer’s mood or behaviour or that consumption would generate a ‘buzz’. In that context, the Panel considered that, as it had previously concluded, as there was not enough to suggest that the word ‘buzz’ would provide an ‘effect’ then it could not be said that the word placed undue emphasis on a potential intoxicating effect. The Panel acknowledged that while all alcoholic drinks would have a level of intoxicating effect, whether it be mild or strong, the rule wording specifically focused on how the product was marketed and in this instance the Panel considered that the word ‘buzz’ alone was not enough to place undue emphasis on the potential intoxicating effect of the alcohol.
The Panel then considered whether the name and its packaging placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength of the product. The Panel acknowledged that it was not within the scope of the Code to regulate against products that had a higher than average alcoholic strength within a drink category and that it could only focus on how such products were marketed and presented. The Panel reiterated the points made in its discussion regarding intoxicating effect and acknowledged that the word ‘buzz’ could refer to the generation of an ‘effect’ and ‘feeling’ from a stimulant such as alcohol, drugs or caffeine, rather than the strength of such a stimulant. Therefore, the Panel considered that the word ‘buzz’ in isolation did not directly or indirectly link to an inherent suggestion that an alcoholic drink was strong or higher than its category average.
The Panel then considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and noted that the final ‘z’ at the end of ‘ballz’ was positioned tilted from the rest of the text. The Panel discussed that while it could potentially be interpreted as being skewed from intoxication, there was nothing else on the front or back of the packaging to suggest that the letter was tilted due to intoxication. In addition to this, the Panel noted that it appeared after the word ‘ball’ which further created a level of separation with ‘buzz’. After careful assessment of the packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded there was nothing else on the label which suggested that ‘buzz’ placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength of the product.
After careful discussion, the Panel concluded that while the incorporation of the word ‘buzz’ in the brand name was close to the line of acceptability, the name and the packaging did not place an undue emphasis on the product’s higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating effect. The Panel therefore concluded that the packaging was not in breach of Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(f)
The Panel discussed whether the packaging could encourage illegal, immoderate or irresponsible consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair explained that Code rule 3.2(f) had been raised in relation to the drink’s name to consider whether ‘buzz’ encouraged illegal, immoderate or irresponsible consumption.
The Panel discussed the principle of Code rule 3.2(f) and the two specific clauses which prevented the encouragement of immoderate or irresponsible consumption, both of which were further defined in accompanying guidance to the rule. The Panel discussed the application of immoderate consumption and noted that while the drink had a higher than average strength ABV, it contained 2.7 units in a single serve non-resealable container which was below the four unit threshold defined in guidance as requiring mitigating risk factors. The Panel noted that the packaging had a flat bottom to be placed down and did not include any language which encouraged a consumer to drink immoderately in the context of its back label which included a responsible drinking message and the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines.
The Panel then discussed irresponsible consumption and accompanying guidance which clarified that the rule disallowed alcohol marketing that encouraged drinking styles that could lead to drunkenness, binge drinking or other types of irresponsible consumption. The Panel debated the word ‘buzz’ in this context and whether it encouraged a form of irresponsible consumption. The Panel noted its rulings under Code rules 3.2(j) and (a) and reiterated that ‘buzz’ could refer to a ‘feeling’ of excitement or happiness which had been induced by a stimulant, such as alcohol, drugs or caffeine. However, the Panel considered that in this particular case there was nothing on the packaging that encouraged an irresponsible or immoderate style of consumption that would directly result in intoxication. Accordingly, the product was not found in breach of Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel Chair noted the Panel’s previous decisions in 2022 under Code rule 3.2(h) regarding BuzzBallz Choc Tease, BuzzBallz Strawberry ‘Rita and BuzzBallz Chili Mango which had concluded that the products did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Chair explained that the case had been put forward for consideration because the complainant had raised concerns that the flavour ‘Berry Cherry Limeade’ contributed toward a particular appeal to under-18s and the flavour variant had not been previously considered.
The Panel discussed the precedent under Code rule 3.2(h) where it had concluded that the shape of the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s which had also been reflected in a 2015 case regarding a bauble drinking vessel. The Panel assessed the packaging of BuzzBallz Berry Cherry Limeade which had the same spherical shape with ring pull top found on a can and flat bottom base. The Panel considered that while the packaging shape bore a similarity to a ball, balls were not inherently toys. As highlighted in the 2022 decision, the Panel reiterated that balls were used for sports played by adults, as well as children, and would have broad appeal across all ages depending on presentation. The Panel noted the company’s points of response that while the packaging was innovative for an alcoholic drink it still retained a ring pull top lid identifying it as a drink receptacle, was clearly alcoholic, did not include any interactive elements and did not resemble any other children’s products for it to be mistaken for a soft drink or a toy.
The Panel reviewed the rest of the packaging and discussed the complainant’s concern that the product name sounded like an action hero. The Panel noted the company’s response that the product did not resemble an action hero toy, nor did it include imagery or text which referenced such characters or other childlike items. The Panel noted that the text employed a mature straight lined font, with no curved edges or bubble writing style text which could enhance the overall appeal the container would have to under-18s. The Panel considered that other than the flavour name and colour, the packaging was consistent with the previous packaging that was subject to decision in 2022 and had not materially changed. The Panel therefore reiterated the conclusion it had come to in 2022, that the product did not have a particular appeal to under-18s on the basis of the product’s shape alone.
In light of the above, the Panel noted that the flavour and blue liquid colour that was visible through the clear packaging were the two differentiating factors compared to the 2022 precedent. The Panel discussed the bright blue liquid which was visible through the clear container with no other bright or contrasting colours present. The Panel noted that the white text did not have a high level of luminance against the blue and appeared muted.
The Panel considered that fruit flavoured drinks were common in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks on the market which included adult drinks and those marketed primarily to children. In drinks that were targeted at children, the flavour profiles tended to include combinations that were mainly sweet or fruit flavoured to suit children’s simpler taste palates. The Panel considered that ‘limeade’ was not a particularly widespread soft drink flavour in the UK and was not a flavour incorporated in children’s products because it had an acidic, sharp taste. The Panel noted that while ‘Berry Cherry Limeade’ was predominantly a fruit flavoured drink, it had both a sweet and sour profile that was complex and could have appeal to a broad range of age groups. During discussion the Panel also noted that in line with precedent and guidance, a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute particular appeal to under-18s. In this particular case, the Panel did not consider that the sweet and sour flavour on a blue, fairly simple, albeit innovative, packaging design was enough to create a level of particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel noted that while the product had become widely popular, it was notably appealing for those in a younger age bracket of 18-25 years old which was a legitimate age group for alcohol producers to market to, as long as such marketing did not particularly appeal to those who were under-18. In the context of the Gacha Machine Promotional Activity, the Panel expressed a level of concern at how the product was presented in accompanying marketing but noted that such marketing or advertising was to be addressed within the appropriate regulatory framework, whether that be as a promotional item under the Portman Group’s Code of Practice or as online advertising under the Advertising Standards Authority’s Committee of Advertising Practice Code.
In the context of the packaging alone, the Panel concluded that the product’s simplistic design meant that there was no single element that had a particular appeal to under-18s, nor was there an overall impression conveyed that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.