In 2026, a large proportion of the advertising that the Advertising Standards Authority regulates is captured online. However, as with anything, this has to start somewhere and the ASA did not regulate company websites or non-paid for online space under producer control until March 2011. The Portman Group’s regulatory remit is defined as:
The Code applies to the naming, packaging, marketing and promotional activity undertaken by a drink’s producer for an alcoholic drink which is marketed for sale and consumption in the UK, where such activity is primarily UK-targeted, and is not already subject to regulation through the ASA or Ofcom.
This aspect of the Portman Group’s regulatory remit is perhaps less well-known but essentially ensures that if there is a marketing medium that is not captured by the ASA or Ofcom, it will be captured by the Portman Group so that there are no regulatory gaps or oversights in the self-regulatory system. A key benefit of any self-regulatory framework is the flexibility and pace at which it can adapt and when regulating innovative and creative industries that encompass marketing and advertising this is critical.
Therefore, prior to the ASA’s regulation of non-paid for online space under producer control, the Portman Group regulated some digital advertising. In 2008 this resulted in a rare case that saw the Independent Complaints Panel consider a ‘mugshot’ section of a WKD website where pictures were posted of consumers at WKD events.
Alcohol Concern complained that the pictures featured included consumers holding WKD products in scenarios that created an association with sexual and social success.
The Panel noted that several of the photographs showed groups posing for the camera while drinking WKD. In some cases, these groups would be huddled together and would be ‘playing up’ for the camera with funny faces and poses, including some that were sexually suggestive. The Panel considered that the invitation to pose for a photograph in a licensed venue was likely to cause these reactions. The Panel was concerned that the effect was to imply close bonding, popularity and a good time, were all very closely linked to the WKD brand. While it was acceptable to portray drinking as sociable, the Panel considered that some of the photographs, because of the above elements, went further and suggested that consumption of WKD could lead to social and sexual success and upheld the complaint.
In light of the Panel’s decision, the producer agreed to remove the mugshots section of the website. The decision is one that shows the earlier examples of producer online marketing and how they were navigating what would become a key area of advertising.
One of the earliest recorded instances of using sexual imagery to sell goods took place in 1871 and since then the marketing adage ‘sex sells’ has been used to justify many risqué promotions. However, when it comes to alcohol marketing the Code of Practice is clear that there should be no association with sexual activity or sexual success. Here at the Advisory Service, we have recently updated our guidance on sexual activity and sexual success to help producers ensure that their marketing is socially responsible.
Guidance has recently been updated due to an increase in advice requests relating to sex toys and related paraphernalia. The UK sexual wellness market is valued at over one billion pounds, suggesting a broad consumer acceptance. Producers often ask why, if alcohol products are marketed to over-18s and messaging is communicated through adult and consensual themes, should an association with sex toys be considered taboo? The answer is that the Code rule is clear in its wording that there should be no association with sexual activity or sexual success. Alcohol can lower a person’s inhibitions and can reduce a person’s ability to make informed decisions. Therefore, even if messaging does not suggest sexual success, sex toys fundamentally create an association with sexual activity and this is enough to cause a breach under this rule.
As an example, the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel)considered a complaint in 2023 regarding Pirate’s Grog Love Potion No.9 Gift Pack which included a copy of the Kama Sutra and a Durex Intense Vibe Ring. The Panel considered that the inclusion of the Kama Sutra, a well-known book related to the depiction of sexual positions and a sex toy in a gift pack with alcohol was wholly inappropriate under the Code and the complaint was subsequently upheld under Code rule 3.2(d).
Whilst the Pirate Grog case may be considered somewhat overt, producers also need to be mindful of how language and innuendo can sometimes inadvertently breach the Code. In the Advisory Service we see plenty of examples where a producer has created short and catchy promotional taglines but by doing so can sometimes introduce a level of ambiguity as to what the lines are trying to convey. Marketing teams need to remember that while the meaning of such lines may be obvious at the point of creation, ambiguity in certain contexts can sometimes generate different meanings and how the average consumer may perceive these is key when determining compliance under the Code.
In 2025, a complaint was raised regarding a promotional neon sign for Jinro Soju which read “Easy to Drink, Drink to Link”.
The complainant raised a concern that “in this context, I believe ‘link’ means ‘to have (typically casual) sexual relations with”. The producer had explained that the phrase was intended to reflect the South Korean culture pairing of Soju with different foods. However, the Panel noted that there was no further context to the promotion to clarify that the line related to pairing the drink with food. In the context of the UK market, the Panel stated that the ambiguity of the line left it open to consumer interpretation and for UK consumers the phrase ‘link’ was predominantly used as a sexual reference and found the promotion in breach of Code rule 3.2(d). In this particular case, the Panel acknowledged that because the company was based outside of the UK it may not have been aware of the slang meaning of the phrase and that the association was likely to have been inadvertent.
The Jinro case is a good example of how risk can stem from marketing that is open ended and may be interpreted in different ways. Where a line is ambiguous it will be up to a consumer to decide on the interpretation and this is where unintentional breaches of the Code can occur. We generally recommend that producers think carefully about how some lines may be interpreted and avoid casual innuendo as it can still create an association with sexual activity in the absence of an explicit reference.
Producers may reason that marketing which is humorous or cheeky is not harmful, but double entendres which create an association with sexual activity can still be found in breach of the Code and sometimes what may be intended as humour can even cross the line into serious offence. In 2023 the Panel considered a complaint against Unshaven Maiden Cider. In this case, the Panel found the name, the marketing line ‘search for the cherried treasure’ and a partially nude mermaid illustration, all linked to sexual innuendo referencing virginity and therefore created an association with sexual activity. Furthermore, the Panel concluded that such messaging was seriously offensive and damaging in the wider context of stereotypes and felt that such messaging was out of place with modern societal values. The complaint was accordingly upheld under both Code rule 3.2(d) and 3.3 (serious and widespread offence).
So, when it comes to alcohol, the Code is clear that marketing must avoid any association with sexual activity or sexual success. If you are an alcohol producer or marketing agency that would like to access free and confidential advice on whether your marketing is likely to be acceptable under Code rules then please do get in touch using our webform or direct email, we’ll be happy to help. We also offer training on the Codes of Practice which can be delivered online or in person, you can read more about this on our website.
Read the new, updated 3.2(d) guidance in full.
Author: Laura Blackmore
Laura is responsible for providing tailored regulatory advice and training under the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice. Laura brings experience from a successful career in education, leadership and management. Laura utilises her educational background to deliver bespoke training and advice through the Portman Group’s advisory service.
Quite often in complaints and the Advisory Service the breaches we see can be inadvertent or the result of a cumulative impact of elements rather than one sole element that is problematic and can be remedied with small amends. However, every now and then, a case comes along which represents a clear-cut breach of the Code. Under today’s complaint process, if a complaint is considered a clear-cut breach of the Code the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel can advise the Code Secretariat to offer the possibility of Informal Resolution. The Informal Resolution route could be considered appropriate by the Chair where a case represents a clear-cut breach of the Code, is not precedent setting for the industry and the producer agrees to make changes to the product with the Advisory Service.
Prior to the introduction of Informal Resolution (or Fast Track as it was previously known), all clear-cut breaches had to be considered by the Panel for a formal ruling. In 2007, the Portman Group received a complaint from Buckinghamshire Trading Standards about a product called Rubbel Sexy Lager. The product label featured a young woman wearing a swimsuit. The swimsuit, however, could be scratched off by the consumer to reveal the woman entirely naked. The Panel considered that both this feature and the product’s brand name, Rubbel Sexy Lager, created an association with sexual success and found the product in breach of the Code. While there isn’t much to say about this breach as it is fairly self-explanatory, the case remains a memorable example of how self-regulatory standards evolve in-step with social standards and raise the bar of what is acceptable for the entire industry.
The Code of Practice has always applied to the packaging of an alcoholic drink. In some cases, producers can be surprised to learn that the definition of ‘packaging’ in the Code also extends to secondary packaging and other products enclosed within the external wrapping.
In the early 2000s, the Portman Group received numerous complaints about gift packs which included teddy bears, chocolates, newborn baby sets and celebration themed packaging.
One such case involved the Bubbly & Bear Gift Pack which was retailed by Asda. A member of the public complained to the Portman Group when her nine year old daughter had been gifted the pack which contained a teddy bear and small bottle of Cavalier.
Asda explained that the gift pack was sold only within the beers, wines and spirits department of their stores and that when it was scanned at the checkout, staff were prompted to ask for proof of age if the customer appeared to be under 21. In this case, Asda believed that the product was clearly alcoholic and was therefore surprised it had been given to a child.
The Panel acknowledged that the company had not deliberately set out to target under-18s and noted that ASDA took precautions in-store to try and ensure that the gift pack could not be purchased by this age group. The Panel also noted that teddy bears were commonly used in gift packs which were very popular, especially on special occasions such as Valentine’s Day. It considered, however, that although teddy bears appealed to many adults, they also had a particular appeal to under 18s, especially the very young and upheld the complaint. Asda removed the gift pack from store.
Alcoholic gift packs are still a popular item, particularly around events such as Christmas, Father’s Day and Mother’s Day. The design of the pack and the included gift can be an area of innovation and the Advisory Service often sees branded merchandise as part of this. As part of the Portman Group’s remit, branded merchandise can also be discussed with our free, confidential Advisory Service. Try to avoid items that will likely resonate with children more than adults and keep the theme adult in nature.
The Second Edition of the Code introduced a number of new Code rules and introduced the principle that alcohol packaging and marketing could not make its alcoholic strength or relatively high alcohol content a dominant theme. The rule was further amended in the Third Edition in 2003 to prevent any marketing that made alcohol’s intoxicating effect a dominant theme.
In 2005, Alcohol Focus Scotland complained about Rocket Fuel Vodka and Rocket Fuel Ice and the prominent positioning of the 42.85% ABV alcohol content on the vodka variant which it believed was using the product’s intoxicating effect to sell the product.
The solicitor acting on behalf of The Rocket Fuel Drinks Company explained the producer’s view that the premium price of the product meant that it would not appeal to those seeking ‘basic alcohol’. The producer response also highlighted that the name was intended to be a humorous joke.
As is the case now, the Portman Group’s free Advisory Service can act in a proactive capacity where it often writes to producers to flag potential issues for confidential discussion. In this instance, the Advisory Service had written to the producer expressing concern about the product’s name. The Panel considered that that the term ‘rocket fuel’ was widely associated with something very strong and very powerful. In the context of a name for an alcoholic drink, the Panel concluded this was an unacceptable choice because it made the alcoholic strength of the product the dominant theme.
If you are contacted by the Advisory Service proactively, it is not the first stage of a complaint. All advice provided is confidential unless you choose to disclose it so you can seek advice in the knowledge that it is non-binding and confidential. Quite often the amends suggested by the Advisory Service will be minor and it is far easier to incorporate such comments during the initial stages of design than when the product is already on shelf so we would always encourage producers to seek advice in the first instance.
The existence of the Code has ensured that product and packaging innovation has been cultivated over time in a responsible manner. However, sometimes there can be an innovation that hits the market that hasn’t been through our free, confidential Advisory Service which could have saved the producer some time and money.
In 2003, a Licensee from Brighton complained about a unique product called X-Plode. Unique because of its shape, X-Plode contained a cream liqueur in a plastic container shaped as a sperm. The producer, Pinsight Financial Services Ltd, explained that the product was intended to be humorous and was not an encouragement to binge-drink or suggest sexual success.
The Panel considered that the product’s sperm-shaped packaging and also the label claim ‘Keep ‘em coming’ linked the product with sexual activity. In view of alcohol’s potential to impair judgement and affect behaviour, it considered that such an approach was undesirable.
The Panel also ruled that the packaging didn’t make it absolutely clear that it was alcoholic, encouraged binge-drinking due to the line ‘Keep ‘em coming’ and particularly appealed to under-18s due to its novel container and cartoon-style sperm illustration. Suffice to say, you can no longer buy an alcoholic cream liqueur in a sperm shaped container!
The Second Edition of the Code was originally published in 1997 and then revised again in 2000. The Second Edition was a heavily revised version and its rules still form the majority of the Code in its Sixth Edition today. It introduced a comprehensive and robust set of standards that have stood the test of time with many of its principles also reflected in the Advertising Standards Authority’s CAP Code. One of the rules added to the Second Edition was the requirement that an alcoholic drink and its marketing cannot suggest any association with, acceptance of, or illusion to illicit drugs.
In 2002, the Portman Group received three complaints from members of the public about Crack Ice. A 5.5% ready-to-drink in a glass bottle, the packaging described the product as ‘A blend of Irish potcheen, citrus and herbs with a buzz’ and stated ‘The Irish love having fun – some believe they were born to party. One things for sure, its clear potcheen spirit, blended with citrus and energising herbs, help give a party that extra buzz. Lose your inhibitions…quicker’, and ‘It’s clearly illicit’.
In its assessment, the Panel acknowledged that ‘crack’ was widely used in Ireland to mean fun but also noted that the word could be linked to ‘crack cocaine’. In this instance, the Panel decided that the word ‘crack’, taken together with the words ‘buzz’ and ‘illicit’, suggested an association, whether or not intended, with the illegal drug crack cocaine.
The early 2000s resulted in a number of rulings against products like Cannabis – The Beer, Cannabis Vodka and Logan Original Hemp Vodka. These precedents addressed a range of products that had entered the market by playing on an allusion to drugs and as a result such widespread association became a thing of the past.
Author: Laura Demorais
Laura is responsible for leading and developing regulatory policy in relation to alcohol marketing issues. She is also responsible for providing the Code Secretariat function to support the Independent Complaints Panel and has oversight of the Advisory Service and Complaints function.
The cases of Shag Lager in 2001 and 2003 respectively show how the ever-evolving nature of the Code can change precedent. Regulatory consistency is important for the industry so that producers can rely on a consistent framework when marketing products. However, this also needs to be balanced with changing perceptions in society, new available evidence and also needs to account for the strengthening of industry rules when appropriate.
In 2001, the Panel first considered Shag Lager under the Second Edition of the Code and noted that while the name ‘Shag’ did create an association with sexual activity, it did not imply sexual success and under the wording of the rule did not believe the product was in breach of the Code. The product itself included imagery of a Shag seabird which the Panel also acknowledged was a common meaning for the word.
In 2003, another complaint was received about Shag Lager Lime which still incorporated imagery of a Shag seabird on the neck of the bottle.
The Third Edition of the Code broadened the rule’s wording to ‘any association with sexual success’ and the Panel considered that the case could be considered again in that context. The producer, Spirit Hop and Grape Holdings Ltd, maintained that Shag was a type of seabird and the packaging included a cartoon visual which was featured on the neck label. The producer explained that it had also refreshed the brand to appeal to its target market of 18–35-year-old clubbers.
However, the Panel considered that shag was a commonly used slang word for sexual intercourse, particularly among the product’s target market, and considered this was how consumers were most likely to interpret the brand name. In a precedent setting case, the Panel also determined that in view of alcohol’s potential to impair judgement and affect behaviour, to link alcohol and sexual activity in a product’s name, packaging or promotional material was undesirable because it might encourage potentially harmful attitudes and behaviour.
The rule was later strengthened in the Fifth Edition of the Code and we’ll revisit how the sexual success/activity rule continued to reshape the market over the coming years.
Author: Laura Demorais
Laura is responsible for leading and developing regulatory policy in relation to alcohol marketing issues. She is also responsible for providing the Code Secretariat function to support the Independent Complaints Panel and has oversight of the Advisory Service and Complaints function.
“Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice”. In this case, it’s summoned Dr Thirsty’s Beetlejuice and the Panel’s decision from 1997. A Trading Standards Officer from Bristol complained that the product suggested it was a reputed aphrodisiac and that the character on the bottle would predominantly appeal to under-18s.
When considering the product, the Panel noted that the name was identical to a 1988 film about a ghost and a spin-off children’s animated series. The bottle design included black and white stripes, the same as the suit worn by the character Beetlejuice, and included the line ‘Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice…release the spirit’. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there was a link between the product and the film Beetlejuice and that the character, which was popular in predominantly under-18s culture, was a breach of the Code.
The Panel also found that the line ‘reputed aphrodisiac’ suggested sexual success and upheld that part of the complaint too.
These days, nostalgia-based marketing has become more popular as a way to appeal to adults with themes from their teens/childhoods. However, care should be taken if including childhood nostalgia in alcohol marketing as inclusion of elements which were popular with children many years ago may still hold an appeal to children today. You can find more guidance on nostalgia-based marketing here.
Author: Laura Demorais
Laura is responsible for leading and developing regulatory policy in relation to alcohol marketing issues. She is also responsible for providing the Code Secretariat function to support the Independent Complaints Panel and has oversight of the Advisory Service and Complaints function.
This is another decision from the first year of the Code and a blast from the past! In October 1996, Alcohol Concern complained about TNT Liquid Dynamite highlighting that the name suggested an association with dangerous behaviour which was emphasised by the packaging designed to look like a stick of dynamite.
The company, Round Imports, disagreed with the complainant’s concerns and stated that the product had never caused or been associated with violent or dangerous behaviour. Instead, the company supplied an indicative list of achievements for dynamite (the explosive) and pointed out that its use had always been beneficially more for the social good than anti-social.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Panel didn’t quite agree with that assessment and concluded that a reasonable person looking at TNT Liquid Dynamite’s packaging, including the product name, would reasonably conclude that there was an association with dangerous behaviour and found the product in breach of the Code.
Unique packaging shapes can often help a product to stand out on shelf but basing such designs on explosives and weaponry will lead to a clear-cut breach of the Code. While these breaches are few and far between, there are a handful of cases that became memorable for doing just that and we’ll revisit this theme later in the series.
Author: Laura Demorais
Laura is responsible for leading and developing regulatory policy in relation to alcohol marketing issues. She is also responsible for providing the Code Secretariat function to support the Independent Complaints Panel and has oversight of the Advisory Service and Complaints function.