Producer:
Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.
Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.
When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.
As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:
- 2(a) was raised on the ground that ‘Bright, bold and hits like a bass drop’ potentially placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating nature of a drink;
- 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ for potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;
- 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;
- 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.
Decision:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
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.
UPHELD
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
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.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether th drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Electric Blue Raspberry’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.
The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.
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 highlighted the text ‘bright, bold and hits like a bass drop’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel noted that the line ‘hits like a bass drop’ was an idiom used to describe a sudden, powerful, overwhelming emotion or physical sensation. It mirrored electronic dance music, where a bass drop referred to a building section of a composition, which would then give way to a bass driven, high energy chorus. Outside of music, it described a feeling that is felt as well as heard, with similarities to how sub-bass frequencies would be experienced. With that in mind, the Panel discussed how the phrase would likely be understood by consumers in the context of an alcoholic drink. As the phrase did not clarify that the line linked to the flavour of the drink, the Panel considered that the average consumer would interpret it as relating to the intoxicating effect of the alcohol when used in the context of an alcoholic drink. The Panel discussed the two elements of the Code rule and noted that a product did not necessarily have to be of higher alcoholic strength within its category to place undue emphasis on its intoxicating effect. The Panel expressed concern that the use of the verb ‘hit’ suggested that the alcohol would have an impact and that this powerful effect from the alcohol was akin to experiencing a bass drop due to its alcoholic nature.
The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s the wild spirit that hits with a sweet-sour kick’. The Panel reiterated that any emotive language such as ‘kick’ or ‘hit’ which could be linked to emphasising the strength or intoxicating effect of the alcohol should be used with caution. However, in this specific instance, the Panel noted that the line made clear that it specifically related to the sweet-sour flavour profile. With that in mind, the Panel considered that this was in direct contrast to the text ‘hits like a bass drop’ which did not reference flavour in the same manner and instead created a link to the intoxicating effect of the alcohol. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that without a clarifying statement, the line ‘hits like a bass drop’ went beyond a factual communication and placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the drink. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.
During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.
The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.
On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.
The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright blue colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, blue raspberry. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, blue raspberry, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.
The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.
In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.
The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.
The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.
The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.
In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.
The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023