Producer:
Sazerac UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
‘I was shocked to come across an arcade machine on the SouthBank in London, in late Feb, handing out free toys and alcohol. How is handing out free alcohol from a huge arcade machine, covered in emojis and cartoon characters, socially responsible? I could see children immediately drawn to it. Finally, it was giving out free soft toys, the sort a 5-year-old might like.’
Decision:
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 explained 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 stated that BuzzBallz was a ready-to-drink premixed spirit which had been established as one of the leading products in multiple markets since 2009. The company explained that the name ‘BuzzBallz’ had been 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 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 the Gacha Machine promotional activity was designed with an adult audience in mind and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) which highlighted that the overall impression of an activity would be taken into consideration, and in this case, the overall impression conveyed was of a mature nature. The company highlighted that the majority of the images depicted on the Gacha Machine were of the drink with statements that it contained ‘13.5% Alc by Vol’. The company added that the most prominent wording was the brand name ‘BuzzBallz’ alongside the phrase ‘ready-to-go cocktails’ which made it clear that the machine was dispensing alcohol. The company explained that the colour of the machine was one shade of blue with no contrasting bright colours, sparkles or glitter effects. The company stated that the arcade concept was designed to appeal to an adult audience as there had been significant growth in adult-focused experiential entertainment, such as arcade themed venues which attracted numerous annual visitors. In addition to this, the company explained that it had chosen a Gacha Machine design because of the rise in popularity of Japanese culture amongst UK adults.
The company highlighted that press images of the event demonstrated it had only been attended by adults. Furthermore, the company had implemented various measures to reduce risk of the promotional activity appealing to under-18s. The company highlighted that all participants were required to read terms and conditions which set out that a person must be 18 or over to be eligible and all consumers who wished to take part were subject to age verification checks. The company explained that wider signage surrounding the event warned that the promotional activity was strictly for those aged “18+ ONLY”.
The company acknowledged that even a single complaint could be upheld. However, the company stated that in the context of a promotional activity that was undertaken in a very busy central London location, only one complaint was received which suggested that the view the activity could have a particular appeal to under-18s was an outlier. The company stated that it did not believe the promotional activity had a particular appeal to under-18s but clarified that it was a one-off event and had no future plans to use the Gacha Machine again.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the Gacha Machine promotional activity had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted the company’s response that the event took place on London’s South Bank and had been age-restricted to those who were 18 and over, with relevant age verification checks applied to participants. The Panel discussed the Code’s interaction with the law and noted that there was the possibility that the activity had been subject to checks by the local licensing authority. However, the Panel sought to remind producers that age verification checks alone did not preclude an event from having a particular appeal to under-18s and the case would be assessed on its own merits.
The Panel noted that London’s South Bank was a popular destination for all ages, including children, as there were multiple family-targeted tourist attractions nearby and it was a popular area of central London. The Panel discussed the location and presentation of the Gacha Machine and noted that it was clearly visible to passersby, including children, even if they were not taking part in the promotional activity. On this basis, given the prominence and location of the promotional activity, the Panel noted that there was widespread exposure to the event, including for those who were under-18, regardless of the age verification checks in place. In addition to this, the Panel also noted that the promotional activity had several prizes available which could be taken away from the event and would also be viewed by a wider audience.
The Panel discussed the Gacha Machine element of the promotional activity and noted that they were a style of coin-operated vending machine which dispensed toys in plastic balls, usually as part of a collectable set, or sweets. The Panel noted that such vending machines were popular and very common in the UK, often found in arcades, bowling alleys, leisure centres, supermarkets and shopping centres and were particularly popular with under-18s. The Panel considered that given the shape and prize dispensing mechanism, the BuzzBallz Gacha Machine was a giant replica of the vending machines enjoyed by under-18s and would therefore be very familiar to them. The Panel considered that the machine itself would strongly resonate with under-18s who would find a large version of a toy/sweet machine to be very engaging and eye-catching.
The Panel assessed the presentation of the Gacha Machine and noted that it was coloured mostly blue and included text in a large white font outlined with a thick bold blue key line creating a distinct contrast. The Panel noted that there were hearts incorporated into ‘I heart Buzzballz’, lightning bolts with the product’s alcoholic strength by volume, illustrations of two BuzzBallz paired together to resemble a cherry all of which had an emoji-like appearance. The Panel noted that emojis had a broad level of appeal but considered that they could contribute to a level of appeal for under-18s depending on their presentation and inclusion alongside other elements. In addition to the artwork, the machine also incorporated a large depiction of a character that resembled a toy Labubu, which despite jagged teeth, had a friendly toy-like appearance. The Panel noted that Labubu toys had become very popular in the UK across a range of age groups which included some adults, however, the Panel also noted that the toys were very popular with under-18s as well and had become fashion accessories on children’s backpacks. The Panel noted that in a busy area of London where under-18s could clearly see the machine this was highly likely to be eye-catching and enticing for them. The Panel considered that the presentation and combination of these elements all contributed to a level of appeal that would particularly resonate with under-18s. When combined in the context of a Gacha Machine that was widely known to dispense toys, the Panel considered that the appearance of the promotional activity would particularly appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the prizes that could be won by participants, which included BuzzBallz Berry Cherry Limeade drinks, stickers, cash prizes and a stuffed branded toy. The Panel considered the toy which bore a strong resemblance to a Labubu which were monster-like creatures in fluffy suits, with jagged teeth, exaggerated smiles and large pointed ears. The Panel expressed significant concern about alcohol marketing which included a branded soft toy as a prize and stated it was wholly inappropriate for alcohol branding to appear on toy-like items that were known to appeal to children. In addition to this, the Panel also noted that the Labubu could be won as a sticker. In the context of a recent precedent regarding stickers.the Panel noted that the inclusion of stickers would not inherently breach the Code but that by their very nature they did hold a level of appeal for children and would be considered depending on their individual artwork. In this case, the Panel considered that the appearance of a branded toy Labubu on a sticker would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel expressed significant concern about a promotional activity which included a giant replica of a vending machine that was popular with children in the UK that typically dispensed toys or sweets. In the context of an event that was widely visible on London’s South Bank, the Panel stated that it was socially irresponsible to conduct such a promotional activity even if participation was age restricted. The Panel considered that the presentation of the Gacha Machine which included cartoon, emoji-like imagery, thick key lines, contrasting colours and a depiction of a branded toy Labubu further enhanced the particular appeal to under-18s that the promotional activity would have. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the branded toy Labubu and Labubu sticker would also have a particular appeal to under-18s as items that would be taken away from the event and into a home environment. The Panel encouraged the producer and the wider industry to be mindful of the various elements of the promotional activity that had breached the Code in this case. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
The company confirmed it would not run the promotional activity in the same form again.