Producer:

Lervig

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended).

Complaint:

“The can design features a colourful graphical illustration style representation of a house party, which is funny and quirky, and is likely to have strong appeal to older children and teens. The name “House Party” is also provocatively appealing to under 18’s and is likely a popular activity with many teens to socialise and consume alcohol before they can legally drink in pubs and bars. This is culturally entrenched in youth culture in the UK and would instantly create an appeal and association with this age group”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.

NOT UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company explained it was a craft beer producer based in Stavanger, Norway and therefore operated under some of the most restrictive alcohol laws globally. ​ Since establishing its visual branding in 2016, it had not received any complaints regarding its artwork, product names, or related matters. ​ The company stated that its beers, including “House Party”, were considered long-standing classics, sold domestically and exported to approximately 30 countries, all without any reported issues. ​

The company stated that over 90% of the product was sold in pubs in the UK, where under-18s were not permitted.  The company explained that the beer had been on the market for years without receiving any complaints.  Additionally, it noted that the higher price point of its craft beer typically attracted an adult audience as the flavour was bitter, unlike sweeter drinks that could appeal to under-18s.

The company explained that it operated in Norway, exported its beer to numerous countries and had not encountered any concerns regarding the artwork or name.  In Norway, the legal age for purchasing alcohol was 18 for beverages up to 22% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and 20 for those exceeding an ABV of 22% to ensure there was no risk of under-18s purchasing alcoholic products.  However, the company noted that UK law was less restrictive in that regard and questioned whether changing the beer’s name would address the purported issue or if the focus of regulation should be on the alcohol purchasing laws themselves as it doubted that the beer’s name was the root of underage drinking. ​

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company respectfully disagreed with the Panel’s provisional decision and stated that it did not believe the application of Code rule 3.2(h) had been applied consistently by the Panel as it had been in previous decisions.

The company acknowledged that House Party may resonate with teenagers but agreed with the Panel’s finding that the name did not inherently appeal to under-18s in isolation.  The company agreed that this aligned with how ‘house party’ was used in popular culture and the phrase did not create an automatic association with underage activity.  The company explained that the name did not include slang, abbreviations, emoji or youth coded language, nor did it romanticise illegal drinking or underage rebellion.  The company stated that it was an overgeneralisation to relate ‘house party’ with only under-18s as the phrase appeared in countless adult contexts including in films and podcasts.  The product did not include memes, irony or rebellion which the company stated were touchstones of youth marketing.  Furthermore, the company noted that many alcoholic drinks on the market referenced party culture, but the packaging of House Party was not paired with any literal illustrations of a party in any case.

The company explained that the visual stye of the packaging was intentionally abstract and artistic; it did not incorporate a narrative or cartoonish or child-like imagery.  The design did not include characters or faces, animals, mascots, toys or pop culture references.  It also did not include simplified shapes, bold outlines, relatable human figures or humorous juvenile content.  The company explained that the limb shapes and distorted structure were symbolic of energy and chaos intended to be an artistic expression typical of the surreal and postmodern visual tradition.  The company stated that this genre of art was commonly associated with adult oriented design rather than children’s media.  The company explained that ‘visual noise’ was not a trait that was indicative of youth appeal and colourful packaging was common within the craft beer sector.  The company stated that the artistic techniques employed intended to reflect a deliberate detachment from realism unlike other character driven packaging designs which had previously been upheld by the Panel.  The company compared House Party’s abstract design to other alcohol products that featured clear youth-style imagery, such as cartoon characters, anthropomorphic animals and whimsical scenes.  The company stated that House Party’s surrealist artwork was far removed from juvenile cues and was more likely to appeal to adults interested in alternative art.  Furthermore, the company stated that ‘House Party’ contrasted sharply with other drinks on the market and expressed concern that an abstract design could be penalised while cartoon imagery had been found to be compliant with the Code.  The company stated that the shift toward viewing abstract, artistic designs as appealing to youth risked setting an uncertain precedent which could potentially create disproportionate challenges for producers who use creative designs with no intention to target under-18s.

The company stated that there was no evidence that the packaging would have particular appeal to under-18s as the complaint had been raised as part of the 2025 independent proactive audit of the market, commissioned by the Portman Group.  The company explained that in nearly a decade of international distribution it had never received a complaint about House Party regarding underage appeal.  The company stated that the drink was stocked by licensed retailers and on-trade venues with age-gating policies and was at the mandatory regulatory standard in other markets with highly restrictive requirements. The company stated that it was therefore disproportionate to remove the product based on speculative appeal with no evidence of real-world appeal to under-18s or misuse.  The company stated that in practice, House Party would not appeal to under-18s given its premium price point, its bitter and hoppy taste, its 4% ABV and that it was mainly sold through licensed on-trade venues which did not sell alcohol to under-18s.

The company requested that the Panel reconsider the provisionally upheld decision and dismiss the complaint based on the above points. ​ The company maintained that House Party was clearly intended for adult consumers and did not pose a practical risk of appealing to under-18s. ​

The Panel’s assessment

During the Panel’s first consideration of the case, it discussed the name ‘House Party’ at length to determine what age demographic the reference would appeal to.  The Panel noted that ‘house parties’ were an enduring tradition amongst young people which included those that were under the age of 18.  The Panel considered that house parties would strongly resonate with under-18s because there were a limited number of nighttime establishments that would allow them entry which meant that house parties were invariably a popular alternative for those under the legal drinking age.  However, as part of this discussion, and its consideration of the provisional decision, the Panel also noted that house parties would strongly resonate with those in an 18-25 age bracket and would have a level of appeal with an older age demographic who would still use the term to describe social gatherings.  The Panel discussed the cultural shift that had occurred in recent years whereby house parties were not exclusively drinking occasions for under-18s and considered that it was not possible to state that a house party would particularly resonate with under-18s given their broad appeal to all age groups.  Whilst broad appeal was acknowledged, the Panel expressed concern that the term would strongly resonate with those in the 15-25 age bracket which included some under-18s.  However, when considering the name alone and the wording of Code rule 3.2(h), it did not consider that the name in isolation would have a particular appeal to under-18s.  Therefore, the Panel noted that it was important to consider the name in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.

The Panel considered the imagery used on the packaging which included an abstract depiction of a character that had a large building placed on its head, with a body protruding underneath and wavy arms flailed at its side.  The Panel also noted that on one side of the can a pair of wavy hairy legs were also included at an angle which reinforced the perception that the artwork was intentionally fantastical and abstract.  The Panel discussed the splashes of coloured patches around the central artwork and considered that the design represented visual noise and gave the impression that the party was uncontrolled which was compounded by the streaks of colour emanating from the property, suggestive of loud music. The Panel discussed that an unrestrained house party would resonate with under-18s as youth culture often glamourised wild and loud house parties.  As part of its consideration of the provisional decision, the Panel debated the depiction of a chaotic and visually loud party at length in terms of its appeal to a younger age group.  The Panel also discussed the company’s response to the provisional decision and acknowledged that while chaotic and wild house parties would resonate with a younger age group, this appeal spanned an age demographic which included adults as well. The Panel discussed Code rule 3.2(h) and its accompanying guidance alongside the company’s response to the provisional decision.  The Panel acknowledged the difficulty in applying the test of particular appeal to a chaotic house party concept that would appeal to a younger demographic but not to the extent where it would resonate with under-18s more than it would with young adults.  The Panel considered research that it had commissioned from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] and discussed how early adolescence was often a period where appeal for under-18s became more adult-like in nature.  As part of this change, the Panel noted that teenage appeal was often based on seeking to emulate the interests of older age groups which made it difficult to apply the test of particular appeal.  On this basis, the Panel determined that in such cases assessing the product packaging in its entirety was key to determine whether it could resonate with under-18s in a particular way.

The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the product packaging and noted that it employed a muted colour palette overlaid on a silver metallic background.  The Panel considered that the font for the company and product name only appeared in black and was simplistic in its design.  When considering the artwork, colour palette and font in combination, the Panel noted that the design was intentionally abstract and stylised in a manner which conveyed a loud and chaotic house party.  However, typical design features that would normally be associated with a younger age group, such as identifiable characters, contrasting colours, thick black key lines and youth culture references were notably absent.

The Panel noted the producer’s response that the product was primarily sold in age-restricted pubs in the UK but noted that this still did not represent all sales which meant the product could still be taken into the home environment and that this remained outside of the producer’s control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed, how it tasted and how it was priced.

After careful consideration, the Panel acknowledged that the name ‘House Party’, alongside an abstract depiction of a chaotic and wild house party, would have a level of appeal to a teenage age group.  However, the Panel considered that the concept would also strongly resonate with a younger adult demographic.  Whilst the Panel noted that this appeal was likely to be particularly strong in the 15-25 age bracket and would therefore capture a level of appeal to some under-18s, the Panel did not consider that this appeal would particularly resonate above and beyond the likely adult appeal.  Furthermore, in the context of an abstract, stylised design which used a limited colour palette on a metallic background with black simplistic font, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.  Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

None required.

[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023

Producer:

Liquor Zaar

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“Overt emphasis given to the higher alcoholic strength (4.4 units). “”Strong”” appears on the can multiple times, as does “”Imported”” and “”8.5%””, alongside the cartoon image of a man flexing his ‘strong’ muscles”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 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

Under Code paragraph 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.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) 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.

NOT UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company did not submit a response to the complaint.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel expressed its disappointment that the producer had not responded to any contact made by the Code Secretariat to discuss the complaint.

3.2(a)

The Panel discussed whether the packaging of O.J Premium Strong Beer placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect. The Panel noted that the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of the drink was 8.5% which was higher than average for the category. Therefore, the Panel considered that it was important that the drink’s strength was communicated on its packaging in a factual and neutral way so that consumers could make an informed decision about consumption given the higher alcoholic strength of the beer. The Panel discussed the balance that needed to be achieved between factually communicating a drink’s higher alcoholic strength while not placing undue emphasis on its higher strength or intoxicating effect.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the packaging to consider how the strength of the drink was presented. The Panel noted several strength cues on the label, including the word ‘strong’ which appeared in large, bold, white text several times on the can. The Panel considered that the text stood out prominently against the rest of the minimalistic, predominantly black and grey label. Alongside this, the drink’s ABV was presented as ‘8.5% alc vol’ several times on the front, back and side of the can in a bold white font. In several places on the label, the presentation of ‘8’ was in a notably larger font than the surrounding text and ‘strong’ had been positioned next to it. While the Panel acknowledged that ‘O.J’ was the largest font on the can, the size used for the ‘8’ made it a dominant feature on the label and its positioning next to ‘strong’ heavily emphasised the beer’s strength. This was reinforced by the number of times these elements were repeated around the label which the Panel considered went beyond factual communication of the drink’s strength. Instead, the Panel considered that the size, repetition and prominence of the product’s strength, and repeated pairing with the word ‘strong’, directly used the drink’s higher alcoholic strength as a marketing feature designed to appeal to consumers on this basis.

The Panel then considered the wider packaging to determine how these elements contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. The Panel noted that the label included a cartoon-style image of a man, who had an athletic build and large muscular arms. The Panel noted that the arms of the man were disproportionately large compared to the rest of his body and were noticeably wider than the man’s waist for contrast. The Panel noted that the character was presented as flexing one of his arms in order to draw attention to his bulged bicep. The Panel considered that the depiction of the man was clearly intended to represent a person
who was strong and powerful. The Panel considered that in the context of the wider packaging, the image of the man was a further cue that the drink was being marketed on its strength and reinforced the perception that the beer was particularly strong.

Taking the above points into account, the Panel considered that the combination of these elements meant that undue emphasis had been placed on the higher alcoholic strength of the beer to the point where it had been used as a marketing technique to appeal to consumers based on strength and went beyond factual communication. Therefore, the Panel considered that the combination of multiple strength cues, including disproportionately large fonts and repeated overt presentation of the drink’s ABV, alongside imagery representing physical strength, placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).

The Panel considered that some consumers would be particularly vulnerable to such marketing where the higher alcoholic strength of a drink was presented as a virtue and marketed as the primary reason to purchase the drink. The Panel was mindful that clause 1.1 of the Code of Practice explicitly stipulated that marketing should not particularly appeal to those who are vulnerable and expressed significant concern that the product had not been marketed in a socially responsible manner.
During research of the case, the Chair also noted that the company’s accompanying marketing on social media platforms marketed on the basis that the product’s higher alcoholic strength was a virtue, a challenge and a primary reason to purchase the product. Therefore, the Chair also requested that the Code Secretariat refer the product’s online marketing to the Advertising Standards Authority for investigation.

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the drink encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(f) which stated that a single serve non-resealable container should not contain more than four units of alcohol unless the packaging incorporated mitigating factors so as not to indirectly encourage immoderate consumption. The Panel discussed YouGov polling commissioned in 20141 which showed that the large majority of adults polled believed that a 500ml can of beer was designed for the contents to be consumed by one person in one sitting. The Panel noted that this did not inherently mean that a 500ml can which contained more than four units of alcohol would automatically breach Code rule 3.2(f) and that consideration would be given to mitigating factors included on pack. The Panel noted that such mitigating factors should be commensurate with the number of units above four in the single-serve container and could feature responsible drinking messaging, a ‘share’ message or a per-serve recommendation.

The Panel noted that O.J Premium Strong Beer contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a non-resealable single serve 500ml can. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it included some best practice elements to communicate alcohol health-related information such as a pregnancy warning logo and the product’s unit content information. However, for a higher than average strength product, the Panel noted that there was no inclusion of the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking guidelines, nor was there was any information to communicate that the drink should be shared between multiple people or consumed over more than one sitting. Therefore, the Panel considered that as the product contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a single serve, non-resealable container, mitigating factors such as a ‘share’ message or per serve information should have been included on the packaging. In the absence of this information, the Panel considered that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(j)

During discussion, the Panel raised Code rule 3.2(j) to determine whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could enhance physical capabilities. The Panel considered the inclusion of an image of a muscular and athletic person on the packaging and whether this suggested that by consuming the beer, a person may experience enhanced physical capabilities. The Panel discussed the assessment of the imagery in the context of Code rule 3.2(a) and noted it had been a contributing factor in conveying the impression that the drink was particularly strong. The Panel noted that the man was athletically built with large muscular biceps which suggested that he was a strong person in good physical condition. However, the Panel considered that this alone did not suggest that consumption of the drink could help a consumer achieve a similar physique. With that in mind, the Panel considered the rest of the label and noted that there was nothing else which implied that consumption of the drink could impart strength to a consumer or help them achieve a greater level of fitness. The Panel considered that while the person depicted was athletic and strong, there was nothing on the packaging that sufficiently linked the image with consumption of the drink. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not suggest the drink could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

The producer did not engage with the complaints process and a Retailer Alert Bulletin was issued.

1 YouGov Polling Results for Drink Sizes 2014; commissioned by the Portman Group

Producer:

Aldi Stores

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

 “The Reprobates’ seems to glamourise illegal behaviour with its name, accompanied by a mugshot image. The bottle neck also carries an image of a cross-bar gate – an image clearly associated with counting days in prison.

 The adult male depicted does not clearly appear to be over the age of 25 and is more likely around 18-20 years of age”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(i)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.

NOT UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that The Reprobates Sparkling Wine was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice.

The company explained that the term ‘reprobates’ was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour.  The company stated that the term ‘reprobates’ was similar to ‘rascal,’ a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfie’s Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that ‘reprobates’ created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the alcohol industry.

The company explained that the imagery used on the packaging was an adult male with a neutral expression standing still and did not create any association with bravado or dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.  The image was representative of a caricature, depicting an everyday working-class man in 1920s dress which at most could be seen to be a ‘rascal’.  The company explained that the historical context of the image depicted what would have been considered a reprobate in the 1920s which was important as that was not necessarily what would be considered a reprobate today, much less a criminal.  The company refuted that the image was a ‘mugshot’ as there were no visual cues suggesting that was the case and it was simply a representation of an everyday working-class adult male from the 1920s holding a sign with the product name superimposed over it.  The company explained that the image was created using artificial intelligence (AI) and was not a real photo nor a mugshot and there was no suggestion that the character was intoxicated.

The company explained that the written and visual communication on the packaging was adult in nature and that it understood that Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like.  The company stated that it did not believe that the character looked under-25.  The character was clearly adult with a strong bone structure, broad shoulders and while clean shaven, there were no visual clues that suggested he was younger.  Furthermore, the image did not represent an individual that under-18s would find aspirational, particularly given the dated and monotone nature of the image.

The company stated that the historical nature of the image was important to consider, as someone in old fashion dress was more likely to be associated with the style of an older generation.  This was in contrast to how young adults were typically depicted today with an emphasis on being casual, trendy and youthful; a standard the character did not meet.  The company stated that age recognition relied on visual cues such as clothing, hairstyle and overall demeanour and the cues on the packaging were vastly different to those of today.  As such, consumers would not consider the image to be a young man under 25 and instead would associate the image with a representation of an adult male from a bygone era.

The company stated it was committed to the responsible retail of alcohol and complied with alcohol marketing guidelines.  The products were exclusively sold in Aldi stores, ensuring they were not marketed to under-18s and the company employed a challenge 25 policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent underage sales.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company stated that it was disappointed with the Panel’s provisional decision as there were similar products on the market which could be interpreted as celebrating criminal activity.

The company disagreed with the Panel’s assertion that the tally marks on the neck of the bottle represented years of a custodial sentence and the implication that this conveyed a serious crime had been committed. ​ Instead, the company highlighted that the tally marks, which were placed on the cap of the bottle’s neck, were far enough removed from the main image on the bottle which meant that it was unlikely consumers would infer an association between the tally marks and what the Panel had inferred was a ‘mugshot’. Furthermore, the company stated that even if the tally marks did represent a custodial sentence, such marks would more commonly represent days, rather than years, which the Panel had not considered. ​ As such, the company disagreed with the Panel’s findings that the tally marks indicated a serious crime had been committed and subsequently warranted a long prison sentence.  The company highlighted that in this context, the tally marks were more likely to represent a number of days which was indicative of a minor misdemeanour. The company stated that this interpretation aligned with the meaning of the name ‘Reprobate,’ which the Panel had deemed acceptable in its provisional decision. ​The company argued that even if the tally marks on the packaging had represented months or years, this still did not necessarily indicate a serious crime had been committed in modern society as crimes such as vagrancy and poaching had historically carried custodial sentences. ​

The company reiterated that other features of the packaging were consistent with similar brands. The company stated that if the Panel chose to uphold the complaint it presumed that the removal of the tally lines would be enough to ensure compliance with the Code. Nonetheless, the company requested the Panel to reconsider its decision. ​

The Panel’s assessment

3.2(b)

The Panel discussed whether the drink’s packaging created any association with illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant.  The Panel first discussed the name, ‘The Reprobates’, to determine how the term reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers.  The Panel noted the producer’s response that ‘reprobate’ was intended to be akin to ‘rascal’, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code.​  The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, ‘reprobate’ was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal.  The Panel acknowledged that ‘reprobate’ could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour.  As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.

The Panel discussed the front label, which included a photo of a man dressed in 1930s attire holding up a board which read ‘The Reprobates’. ​ The Panel considered the positioning of the man in the photo, staring straight ahead while holding a board, which did appear to be very similar to the classic ‘mug shot’ position.  This interpretation was compounded by the serious expression and rigid stance the character maintained as opposed to how one might usually pose for a photograph with a smile and relaxed posture. ​ Furthermore, directly above the image on the neck of the bottle was the inclusion of numerous lines presented as a tally which was designed to mimic the appearance of carvings. ​ The Panel considered that tallies were often used in the context of a prisoner counting the number of years they had served in prison, typically crudely etched onto a wall or other surface. ​ The Panel noted that such tallies were synonymous with prisoners who were serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes as a way to keep track of passing time.

The Panel considered the name ‘The Reprobates’ within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count and considered that a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.

The Panel considered the presentation of the product and noted from the producer’s response that the imagery had no contemporary relevance.  The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that it advised against glamourising crime which linked to contemporary illegal behaviour.  The Panel further noted that guidance stated that the severity of crime depicted or referenced could also impact how ‘illegal behaviour’ may be applied under the Code by the Panel.

The Panel carefully considered the cumulative impact of how criminal behaviour was portrayed on the product packaging and noted that it did not glamourise contemporary illegal behaviour.  However, the Panel acknowledged that while contemporary crime was not necessarily glamourised by the packaging, a clear and dominant association with illegal behaviour had been created through the name and imagery which had resulted in what appeared to be a fairly lengthy prison sentence, therefore inferring that a serious crime had been committed.

The Panel’s consideration of the company’s response to the provisional decision

The Panel considered the company’s response carefully and noted that it primarily focused on other producer marketing in the category and the assertion that the tally marks did not represent a custodial sentence, and that even if they were construed as such, did not necessarily suggest that a serious crime had been committed.

The Panel discussed the company’s concerns regarding similar products which were available in the UK market and the assumption that these were approved by the Portman Group.  The Panel stated that it could only consider the merits of the case subject to complaint and highlighted that it had not made a formal decision regarding other products that the company had raised in its response.  As the final arbiter of the Code, the Panel would only consider the case against The Reprobates Sparkling Wine and could not provide advice on any changes that may be required to comply with its decision as this was the responsibility of the Portman Group’s Advisory Service.

The Panel discussed the company’s response regarding the product packaging and noted that the company had concluded that ‘the name and image on the bottle had been deemed acceptable by the Portman Group’ which had led it to focus its response on the tally marks which it perceived had tipped the balance of compliance and resulted in an upheld complaint.  However, the Panel considered that this fundamentally did not address the concerns it had raised in terms of the overall impression conveyed by the product and noted that the provisional decision did not explicitly state that the tally marks were the only problematic element on the packaging.   The Panel highlighted that the provisional decision had stated that the name ‘The Reprobates’ within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count, and a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles, reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.

In addition to this, the Panel noted that the company had denied that the tally marks were intended to refer to a custodial sentence but equally noted that it had not offered any explanation as to what they were intended to represent nor why they had been included on the packaging.

The Panel then considered the latter half of the company’s response which stated that even if the tally lines were representative of a custodial sentence, a consumer would not interpret them in such a way as they were detached from the main imagery on the label.  The Panel discussed this point and considered that as the tally marks and mugshot style image were in the same field of vision, an average consumer would make the brand narrative link between an image of a person being incarcerated and a symbol of passing time in prison; both directly linking to criminal behaviour.  The Panel considered that this was the dominant impression conveyed in the absence of any other story-telling cues on pack.

Finally, the Panel then considered the company’s response that if the tally lines were representative of a prison sentence the lines did not necessarily infer a serious crime had been committed as they could represent days or weeks in line with a sentence for a minor misdemeanour which was in keeping with the name ‘The Reprobates’.  Taking into account the points made above, the Panel reiterated that the tally lines compounded the impression that the character, who was presented in a mug shot style image, had been convicted of a crime and was counting down the time until release or a period of time served in prison.  Therefore, regardless of the specific period conveyed, the impression was still one that the character had been convicted of a crime that was serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence.

Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s name, a mugshot style image and number tally which inferred that a sufficiently serious, if unspecified, crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, created a direct and dominant association with illegal behaviour. The Panel considered that as there was no other brand narrative to contradict these points, or any alternative explanation offered by the company, it was reasonable to conclude that a consumer would interpret the labelling in this manner.  Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b). ​

3.2(i) ​

The Panel considered whether the packaging featured in a significant role an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age, as raised by the complainant.  ​The Panel first assessed the image of the man and noted that while his age appeared to be somewhat indeterminate, the historical clothing did mean that he was presented in a mature manner.​ The Panel considered that the spirit of Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like and that this had been applied by the Panel in previous cases considered under the Code.  With that in mind, the Panel considered that the character’s clothing was distinctly different from contemporary fashionable attire and that the character’s style was largely obscured by the presentation of the label. ​ The Panel considered that there was nothing else on the packaging that referenced modern youth culture and further determined that the man was not presented in a way that would be particularly aspirational to under-18s. ​On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not incorporate an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age and accordingly the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i). ​

Action by Company:

Product discontinued

Producer:

Aldi Stores

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“Product is called “The Reprobates” (noun – an unprincipled person), the label shows a mono image of a Doberman dog in a hoodie, potentially implying danger and anti-social behaviour if you believe in social stereo-typing”.

 Decision:

 Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour

NOT UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that the drink’s packaging was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice.

The company explained that term ‘reprobates’ was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour.  The term ‘reprobates’ was similar to ‘rascal,’ a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfie’s Whisky.  Therefore, the company did not consider that ‘reprobates’ created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the industry.

The company explained that alcohol artwork often employed unconventional and surprising elements to capture attention and the juxtaposition of a dog dressed in a hoodie was intended to create a visually intriguing image.  The image was whimsical and a stylised representation that was unusual and eye-catching in order to differentiate from other products in the market.  The company stated it was incorrect to suggest that a hoodie, or a dog wearing a hoodie, referenced or glamourised violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal activity.  The company explained that ‘hoodies’ had become ubiquitous contemporary fashion attire, worn by all ages and backgrounds and therefore reflected modern aesthetic rather than negative connotations.  The company noted the Panel’s decision against Cwtch, which stated that the dishevelled bear, slumped back with empty bottles depicted on the floor, contributed to a breach of Code rule 3.2(b).  In contrast, The Reprobates California Red included a realistic image of a dog, with a straight expression that was not intoxicated and with no other elements which could associate the image with alcohol. The company highlighted that the dog itself was not depicted in an aggressive stance such as having raised eyebrows or bared teeth.

The company stated it was committed to the responsible retail of alcohol and complied with alcohol marketing guidelines.  The products were exclusively sold in Aldi stores, ensuring they were not marketed to under-18s and the company employed a challenge 25 policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent underage sales.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant.  The Panel first discussed the name, ‘The Reprobates’, to determine how reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. ​ The Panel noted the producer’s response that ‘reprobate’ was intended to be akin to ‘rascal’, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code.​ The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, ‘reprobate’ was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal.  The Panel acknowledged that ‘reprobate’ could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour.  As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.

The Panel then discussed the front label which included an image of a dog wearing a hoodie set against a dark background.​ The Panel considered that the shadowing technique employed meant that the animal appeared edgy and implied a dark tone but noted that this did not go as far to create an association with aggressive or anti-social behaviour. The Panel discussed the depiction of the dog, a Doberman, and noted that it was not an illegal breed within the UK, nor was it a breed associated with dog fighting or unprovoked attacks. Whilst the dog appeared stern, it was not adopting an aggressive stance; it did not have pinned back ears, bared teeth or snarling lips.  The Panel noted that the dog was wearing a ‘hoodie’ but considered that, while the dog’s hood was raised, it was not being used in an intimidating manner or obscuring his face in a way that could be suggestive of anti-social behaviour.  Furthermore, the Panel considered that a hoodie was a common and popular item of clothing worn by all ages and therefore did not inherently create an association with anti-social behaviour.

In light of the above, the Panel considered the rest of the label which did not include any other reference to violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour and therefore concluded that the packaging did not breach the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

None required.

Producer:

Global Brands

Complainant:

Self-referral

Complaint:

 “Global Brands addressed compliance concerns raised by The Portman Group regarding a planned Hooch 90th Anniversary limited-edition packaging featuring the original “Lemon Man” design. Global Brands acknowledged the historical context of the 1996 ruling against the design and voluntarily self-referred the matter to the Independent Complaints Panel for reassessment under modern standards.

Global Brands highlighted that it was amongst a very few select cases in the Portman Group’s history where the original ruling was made before the establishment of the Independent Complaints Panel in 1997. Global Brands stated that the design had been updated to reduce youth appeal and that this design was aligned with recent Panel precedents, as opposed to those which were made nearly 30 years ago. Global Brands also highlighted that the RTD (ready-to-drink) category had evolved since 1996, with reduced appeal to minors and lower average alcohol by volume (ABV).

On the basis of these changed circumstances, Global Brands reiterated its commitment to responsible marketing and requested a fair review by the Independent Complaints Panel”.

 Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.

NOT UPHELD

The company’s submission

As a long-standing signatory to the Code of Practice, the company stated it valued its relationship with the Portman Group and the guidance it provided in fostering a responsible and trusted alcohol industry. ​ The company emphasised its serious commitment to adhering to the Code’s principles and highlighted its proactive efforts to reduce the alcoholic strength of products across its Ready to Drink (RTD) portfolio. This included Hooch, which had a 3.4% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), demonstrating its dedication to moderation, responsibility and product stewardship. ​

The company stated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can was explicitly positioned for an adult audience, supported by independent consumer insight and behavioural data, with over 87% of its consumer base aged 35 and over. ​ The company explained that this was achieved through a strategy to re-engage consumers with a nostalgic connection to the brand’s original launch in 1995. ​ The campaign referenced cultural touchstones and irreverent humour that were understood by those who were adults or teenagers in the 1990s. ​ The design choices and brand voice were deliberately calibrated to resonate with a mature demographic rather than under-18s.  The company explained that there were clear parallels with other complaint precedents, where the Panel had acknowledged that retro characters were acceptable when they clearly resonated with older consumers. ​

The company explained that the can was designed with a mature, nostalgic aesthetic, featuring black as the primary colour, which was not typically associated with children’s products. ​ The company added that yellow had been used sparingly to denote flavour rather than for decoration or playfulness. ​ Serif and refined fonts were employed instead of bubble or playful styles that were often linked to children’s media.  Furthermore, the Hooch logo was bold, sharp and structured, avoiding cartoonish forms. ​ The company stated this design aligned with the Portman Group’s guidance and was consistent with previous Panel decisions on products such as Cwtch, AU Vodka Bubblegum, and Wingman. ​

The company explained that as the word ‘lemonade’ featured on the product, a considered effort was made to ensure the drink’s alcoholic nature was clearly communicated. ​ The company highlighted that the packaging prominently displayed the term “Alcoholic Lemonade”, included multiple ABV indicators, responsible drinking messages and an 18+ icon. ​ The company explained that this was aligned with the market standard for similar drinks.

The company stated that the lemon character on the can was based on a grimacing icon from the original 1995 campaign which was part of the “refreshment with a bite” platform. ​ Its visual design was aligned with subversive, adult-oriented cartoons from the 1990s, such as Ren & Stimpy and Beavis & Butt-Head. ​ The company explained that this aesthetic contrasted sharply with modern children’s media, which typically featured soft shapes, bright colours and friendly expressions. ​ The lemon lacked limbs, a smile or eyes — traits commonly associated with child-oriented characters — and was instead used as a visual metaphor for strong flavour rather than as a mascot. ​ The company stated that the cultural and generational gap between the can artwork and contemporary children’s entertainment was crucial to demonstrating compliance with Code rule 3.2(h). ​Furthermore, the company considered that recent similar precedents supported the position that the combination of retro styling and absence of childlike traits were acceptable and this included packaging that featured characters.

The company explained that in the broader context, RTDs were consumed by only 10% of underage drinkers, significantly less than beer, cider, and spirits. ​ The company highlighted NHS data which reflected a category breakdown beyond traditional “Alcopops”, such as canned cocktails and spirit-and-mixers, many of which were not colourful or fruit-led. ​ The company stated that the assumption that RTDs inherently appealed to under-18s was not supported by data and therefore the assessment of the packaging should be based purely on its actual design and presentation, which would not attract underage interest. ​

The company submitted commissioned research which demonstrated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can resonated predominately with consumers aged 31-60.  The company also highlighted data within this which reflected that younger consumers were more engaged with other SKUs in its portfolio. Furthermore, its commissioned research showed that the majority of consumers recognised the drink as alcoholic when compared with two other similar drinks that had previously been considered by the Panel with no breach of the Code being found in either case.

The company concluded that the above points demonstrated that the drink was nostalgic and appealed to a mature audience and therefore was not in breach of the Code.

The Panel’s assessment

The Chair explained that the company had chosen to self-refer a complaint regarding the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can after it had been contacted by the Portman Group regarding a potential compliance issue.  The company had self-referred the complaint to the Panel on the basis that similar packaging had been upheld in 1996 by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code as it was found to appeal to under-18s.  The Chair stated that this was one of a select few of cases that had been subject to a decision by the Portman Group, rather than the Panel which had been created in 1997 and had been made at a time where there was significant concern regarding alcopops.  In addition to this, the Chair noted that in compliance discussions with the Portman Group, the company had highlighted that regulatory standards had evolved over time and that the packaging had been amended to ensure that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today.  In agreement with the Portman Group, the company had therefore self-referred the case to the Panel to determine if it was acceptable under the Code.  The Panel noted this information and thanked the company for its proactive action given the unique set of circumstances that pertained to the case.

The Panel discussed the 1996 decision regarding Hooch which had concluded that the personified lemon was similar to motifs of the time and therefore appealed to under-18s.  The Panel considered the company’s response and acknowledged that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision was made, children’s media and marketing had evolved significantly.  The Panel also noted that its own understanding of marketing techniques that were used to appeal to under-18s had developed and that this was informed and supported by research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1].  The Panel acknowledged that the original decision was based on the personified lemon being similar in appearance to ‘existing motifs appealing to under-18s’ in 1996 and considered that as 30 years had passed it was important to assess the current packaging against updated precedents and guidance, new research, contemporary marketing styles and current societal standards.

The Panel assessed the front label and noted that it included a large personified yellow lemon on a predominantly black background.  The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h), which had been informed by the Kids Industries report, and noted that the lemon did have some elements which could appeal to under-18s such as a thick black key line and relatively simple design.  However, the Panel noted that the lemon had a grimaced facial expression with its teeth exposed and lips pulled apart which gave a menacing impression.  Furthermore, the Panel noted that the lemon had small eyes which were furrowed into a frowned expression. The Panel considered that the lemon did not appear to be playful or friendly and was unlikely to be engaging to a younger audience as it differed vastly from children’s cartoon characters who usually adopted a welcoming stance, large eyes and a smiling face.  The Panel considered that while the imagery included the use of yellow, the colour palette overall was saturated and there were few contrasts with minimal use of primary colours.  The Panel discussed the company’s response and the decision to use the colour yellow sparingly to denote flavour and the choice to update the design of the lemon so that it was more aligned in design with adult-orientated cartoons from the 90s.  With this in mind, the Panel noted that the lemon did not have a friendly demeanour or welcoming features and appeared in an overall design with a limited colour palette.  Furthermore, the Panel noted that the design of the lemon was very similar to that which had appeared on the original 1995 packaging and would be recognised by adult consumers.  As the lemon did not bear similarity to characters that were popular with contemporary children, the Panel considered that the lemon would instead have a particular nostalgic appeal to those who would remember it from the 90s and would now be over 30 years old.  On this basis, the Panel considered that the lemon character did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel then considered the overall impression conveyed by the rest of the packaging.  The Panel noted that the majority of the label was black, with yellow highlights used for font, the lemon, the rim and base of the can, alongside small uses of green and red.  The Panel considered that the predominantly black label conveyed a mature impression and the use of the straight-lined serif font also contributed to an adult-orientated style.  The Panel discussed the lemonade flavour and considered that this would have a broad appeal across all age groups.  The Panel noted that at the bottom of the can was a box which read ‘since 1995’ and was presented as a motif to popular Brit Pop band Oasis, who had recently reformed and launched a UK tour.  In addition to this, at the top of the can, was a green banner which read ‘30 years of’, further conveying that the product was targeted at a very specific adult demographic.  The Panel considered that both these cues emphasised the nostalgic appeal the drink would have to those who were young adults in the 90s and would not hold a particular appeal to under-18s today.

While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made against Hooch by the Portman Group in 1996, this had been based on its similarity to motifs which had been popular in the 90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time.  In this particular case, the Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision, contemporary marketing styles and societal standards had evolved which had fundamentally changed what would particularly appeal to children today.  This shift in cultural landscape had also been accompanied by more detailed and developed regulatory guidance which had informed updated understanding as to what marketing elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s.  In this context, the Panel concluded that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not have welcoming, friendly features, was presented with a menacing grimace and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.  The Panel also considered that the packaging used mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and incorporated elements which had clear nostalgic appeal to adults such as references to a 30-year anniversary and the year 1995.  Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.  Accordingly, the packaging was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

None required.

[1] Marketing That Appeals to Under 18s, Prepared for the Portman Group and the Independent Complaints Panel by Kids Industries, 2023

Producer:

Lervig

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

The can has no mention of alcohol content on the front and, with the illustrations, the alcoholic nature of the drink is not communicated with absolute clarity.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company explained it was a craft beer producer based in Stavanger, Norway and therefore operated under some of the most restrictive alcohol laws globally. Since establishing its visual branding in 2016, it had not received any complaints regarding its artwork, product names, or any related matters. The company stated that its beers, including “Passion Tang” were considered long-standing classics, sold domestically and exported to approximately 30 countries, all without any reported issues.
The company explained that the can designs were round and lacked a defined front, with clear information about the product such as “SOUR ALE” and the alcohol content of “7% VOL.” easily visible on one part of the can. The company therefore stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink had been communicated with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the brand had been in the market for over seven years, maintaining the same design throughout, and had received no complaints or instances of consumers mistakenly purchasing it.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel discussed whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the front label of the can and noted that it was absent of any typical positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s legal name, alcoholic descriptors or the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). Instead, the Panel noted that the predominant imagery for three-quarters of the wraparound artwork was cartoon-like passionfruit slices alongside stylised illustrations of legs and toes. The Panel discussed that passionfruit was not a typical flavour associated with alcoholic drinks and noted that, overall, the design was fairly busy with an overt emphasis on passionfruit. The Panel considered that these design features could detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature. However, the Panel noted that it was not a requirement of the Code or the law to include mandatory information on the front of packaging and that guidance accompanying the Code rule advised that the entirety of the label must be considered when determining compliance with the Code.

The Panel then considered the back label and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues in small text such as the drink’s ABV, the descriptor ‘Sour Ale’, the pregnancy warning logo and the drink’s unit content information. The Panel noted that these elements were included alongside other information such as the drink’s ingredients and recycling details which were presented in a relatively small font size and did not particularly stand out on the packaging. The Panel considered the drink’s name, ‘Passion Tang’, which was included on the top of the back label. The Panel discussed the name and noted that ‘tang’ was commonly used to describe non-alcoholic products such as sweets or soft drinks in the UK. The Panel considered that ‘Passion Tang’ as a name alone would not communicate to consumers that the drink was alcoholic as it was likely that the term on a 330ml can would be more associated with fruit flavoured non-alcoholic drinks.

With that in mind, the Panel carefully considered whether the packaging had the capacity to cause consumer confusion. The Panel acknowledged that there were some positive alcoholic cues on the back of the packaging but noted from previous precedent cases that compliance with UK legal regulations did not necessarily equate to compliance with Code rule 3.1, particularly where packaging had incorporated predominant fruit imagery or placed emphasis on a flavour not typically associated with an alcoholic drink. In those cases, the Panel had concluded a product may need to work harder to ensure its alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the producer’s response that the product was only available in speciality alcohol shops but reminded producers that all products that were purchased could be taken into the home environment and that this remained outside of the producer’s control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed.

With the above points in mind, the Panel concluded that the name ‘Passion Tang’, alongside the predominant passionfruit design and fruit flavour was the overwhelming impression conveyed by the product. The Panel considered that whilst there were some positive alcohol cues on the back of the packaging these were all included in relatively small size font and that the overwhelming fruit messaging detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature and could cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic or not. Therefore, on balance, the Panel found that the packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the
complaint under Code rule 3.1.

Action by Company:

No longer sold in the UK.

Producer:

Skinny Brands

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“Skinny lager by name, plus the illustrations that show lots of sporting activities including football, marathon running and cycling linked by a continuous thread to the beer bottles, suggests that the product supports a healthy lifestyle and leads to weight loss”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect 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 stated that the term “Skinny” in “Skinny Lager” was used as a permitted nutrition claim under applicable legislation and did not imply therapeutic or enhancement properties. The company highlighted that the term was widely recognised in consumer language, such as a “Skinny Latte”, to denote a reduced-calorie option. Under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, products were allowed to make a “reduced energy” claim if they contained at least 30% fewer calories than comparable reference products, which Skinny Lager met with 35% fewer calories than standard UK lagers. The company stated that it had independent nutritional analysis which substantiated this claim. The company explained that the term referred exclusively to the product, not the consumer and did not suggest health outcomes, weight loss or physical improvement. Therefore, the company believed that the product’s naming fell within the definition of a nutrition claim and did not constitute a health or enhancement claim under the Code.

The company stated that the imagery did not breach Code rule 3.2(j) as the illustrations were abstract and stylised, reflecting social and recreational associations rather than health outcomes or personal transformation. The company stated that no visual elements like weighing scales, before and after comparisons or fitness slogans were present to suggest weight loss, therapeutic qualities or improved physical function. Additionally, the company highlighted that associating alcohol brands with sports was commonplace in the industry and the imagery on the packaging aligned with such norms, focusing on social associations rather than health messaging. Furthermore, there was no health-related language, direct or implied used in the branding, packaging or promotional content and there were no calls to action or health-oriented taglines suggesting the drink enhanced physical or mental capabilities.

The company shared commissioned market research which demonstrated that consumer perception aligned with the company’s position. None of the participants reported consuming Skinny Lager “to lose weight” or “during sport”. Instead, the research reflected that 48% consumed it while “watching sport,” and 13% drank it “after playing sport” 1. The company explained that the research results confirmed that the product was not perceived as promoting physical enhancement or weight loss but was consumed in typical social settings associated with alcohol use.

The company stated that in a previous complaint reviewed by the Panel, the same illustrative style and brand imagery were assessed, and the complaint was not upheld, demonstrating prior acceptance of the branding approach under the Code. Furthermore, the company explained that similar advertisements had been approved by the appropriate body within broadcast regulation and while this was a different regulatory framework, the company considered such approval was further evidence of the responsible and compliant nature of the promotional strategy of the brand.

The company concluded that the term “Skinny” was used as a legitimate nutrition claim based on reduced calorie content. No suggestion of physical, mental, or behavioural enhancement was conveyed through the name, imagery, or promotional materials. Independent consumer research confirmed that the product was not perceived as promoting weight loss or physical enhancement and similar marketing had previously been reviewed and accepted by the Panel. On that basis, the company stated it did not believe that the packaging was in breach of the Code.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel considered whether the packaging of Skinny Lager 4 Pack 330ml bottles suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Chair explained that a previous case regarding SkinnyBrands Premium Lager had been subject to a complaint in 2019 under the same Code rule raised by Zenith in this complaint as part of the previous audit. Whilst the complaint was not upheld, the Chair explained that the current packaging of Skinny Lager 4 Pack 330ml bottles was significantly different to the 2019 case and therefore warranted reconsideration by the Panel. The Chair noted the producer’s response which claimed that the Panel had previously considered the same illustrative style and brand imagery and had not upheld the complaint in 2019. The Chair explained that while the producer had submitted product artwork to the Portman Group’s Advisory Service in 2019 which featured the same illustrative style, this had only been considered by the Advisory Service. As part of the formal complaint process, the Panel had only adjudicated on the packaging subject to complaint in 2019 which had not featured the same illustrations and brand imagery. Finally, the Chair discussed the Code’s interaction with the law and noted that as stipulated in the Code, it was a producer’s responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and the Code sat alongside these requirements. The Chair reminded the Panel that its role was to determine product compliance under Code rule 3.2(j), specifically in this case, whether the product was making any direct or indirect health claims. If the Panel had significant concerns regarding product compliance with nutritional standards set in law, and was therefore outside of its regulatory remit, then it could refer the matter to the appropriate regulatory body.

With that in mind, the Panel discussed its previous consideration of the name ‘Skinny’. The Panel noted that in the 2019 decision, the term ‘skinny’ was found to be acceptable where it specifically related to a drink’s reduced calorie content. The Panel considered how ‘skinny’ would be understood by consumers and stated that ‘skinny’ continued to be common vernacular to communicate that a drink or food had reduced energy compared to other higher calorie counterparts. The Panel noted that the packaging included the comparative claim ‘35% fewer calories than other premium lagers’ which supported the interpretation that ‘skinny’ in this context was being used to refer to the drink’s reduced energy content. The Panel discussed the company’s point that the term was a nutritional claim which it could substantiate and noted that this was also reflected in messaging on the product website. The Panel reiterated that when used as a reduced energy claim, consumers would be familiar with the term ‘skinny’ denoting a lower calorie comparison that, in the Panel’s view, did not in and of itself make an implied health claim. On this basis, the Panel considered that its ruling on the name ‘Skinny’ in 2019 was still applicable and did not breach Code rule 3.2(j) as a name. However, to determine compliance with Code rule 3.2(j), the name would still need to be assessed as part of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included secondary cardboard packaging encasing four beers. The secondary packaging was predominantly black and included stylised line drawings of different activities and drinks interconnected with lines. The depicted activities included a person completing a race, riding a bike and playing various sports such as cricket, football and rowing. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the packaging contained social activities as well as sporting activities but nonetheless noted that the vast majority of the images depicted were sports or exercise. The Panel stated that creating an association between sport and alcohol was not inherently problematic provided there was no suggestion that alcohol could enhance a consumer’s physical capabilities. The Panel discussed that the sports depicted required a certain level of fitness and capability for a person to participate. Additionally, the Panel noted that throughout the connected imagery, there were images closely associated with consumption of alcohol, including a bottle opener, hops, a bottle cap, bottles being chilled and pint glasses being clinked in the common way people often toast before consuming a drink. The Panel discussed the combination of these elements and expressed concern that the cohesive lines emphasised the direct connection between consumption of alcohol and physical fitness. Furthermore, as the overwhelming majority of the images depicted physical activity, this reinforced the impression that the beer and physical activity were inherently connected. The Panel considered the name ‘Skinny’ in that context and stated that the name, combined with the imagery, went beyond factually communicating a reduced energy claim. Instead, the Panel considered that the name ‘Skinny’, when presented alongside multiple depictions of fitness activities, reinforced the perception that the drink could support and aid a healthier lifestyle. The Panel considered that this interpretation was compounded by the clear and direct link to consumption of the drink, which created a clear relationship between physical exercise, weight maintenance and consumption of the beer. Taking the above points into account, the Panel considered that the combination of the name ‘Skinny’, the dominant theme of sports activities and the link between enhancement of physical capabilities and alcohol consumption, suggested that the drink had a therapeutic quality and could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service.

1 Skinny Brands Independent market research, Mustard Research

Producer:

Vault City Brewing

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I am contacting you regarding the packaging of a Scottish brewery called Vault City. I purchased some of their products and left them in the fridge. When I was out my son picked radler out of the fridge thinking it was a soft drink. He opens it and tried it and fortunately didn’t like it. The packaging is immigrating san pelegrino soft drinks and that is what he thought it was”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company emphasised its commitment to responsible marketing, compliance with regulations and highlighted that, in its view, the packaging was compliant. The company explained that the product was only sold through independent retailers but stated that it was open to constructive feedback from the Panel.

The company stated that it was confident that the alcoholic nature of Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Radler was clearly conveyed through several cues on the packaging. ​ The company argued that the word “beer” appeared prominently on the front of the can, alongside the company name “Vault City Brewing” which reinforced the alcoholic nature of the drink. ​ Additionally, the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 3.4% was displayed on the front, with the messaging “ALC 3.4% VOL”, unit content information and a pregnancy warning logo also present on the back label. ​ The company stated that these elements adhered to legal labelling requirements and best practice guidelines for responsible alcohol communication, exceeding the standards observed in previous not upheld cases under Code rule 3.1. ​

The company referenced similar cases where the Panel had determined that the presence of an ABV and other alcohol cues were sufficient enough to avoid a breach, despite the absence of the word “beer” on the front of the pack. ​ The company highlighted that the packaging of Radler Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Beer went beyond this by prominently displaying the ABV alongside explicit alcohol descriptors which included the words “beer” and “brewing” on the front of the packaging, ensuring even greater clarity regarding the drink’s alcoholic nature. ​

The company described itself as a fruit-forward craft brewery that used over 185,000kg of real fruit annually in its beers. ​ The company stated that its packaging was designed to emphasise the real fruit ingredients in a modern and adult-appropriate manner. ​ The design aligned with the broader Radler category, which was characterised by bright, citrus-forward artwork and lower alcoholic strength. ​ The company highlighted that Radler was a well-established beer style, recognised by consumers in both mainstream and craft sectors as a low-strength, fruit-infused beer, citing other examples on the market which featured similarly vibrant, fruit-led packaging. ​

The company explained that its product was packaged in a 330ml sleek can, a format commonly used in the UK alcohol market for ready-to-drink cocktails and fruit-forward alcoholic beverages. ​ The company highlighted that this packaging style was familiar to UK consumers as a standard choice for alcoholic drinks, not just soft drinks. ​ To prevent consumer confusion, the company had included clear and visible alcohol indicators, such as the word “beer” on the front, multiple ABV statements and responsible drinking messaging. ​

The company expressed regret that a child had accessed the drink and suggested this may have been because the alcohol had been left unattended in a family fridge instead of in a locked beer fridge.  The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the product had been clearly communicated and was consistent with both regulatory standards and previous Panel precedents. The company concluded that it remained committed to upholding best practice standards and would carefully consider any recommendations by the Panel.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel considered whether the packaging of Radler Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Beer communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity, regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014.  However, compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1.  The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code if it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.

The Panel assessed the front label of the drink which included the word ‘Radler’ in a prominent large font. The Panel discussed that while the term ‘Radler’ may be recognised by some consumers as a citrus-based beer, this was not a universally recognised term to denote alcohol in the UK.  The Panel acknowledged that the term was better known with a younger drinking demographic but noted that it had not been understood by the underage person who had accidentally consumed the drink. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘Radler’ on its own did not sufficiently communicate the product’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel considered that the front label included the product’s alcoholic strength of 3.4% but noted that this was positioned at the bottom of the label in a relatively small font size which meant that it did not particularly stand out. Juxtaposed above this, there were prominent images of fruits with the words ‘lemon, grapefruit and pineapple’ set on a white background. The Panel noted that the rest of the label was fairly minimalistic with a yellow and blue background which meant that the fruit imagery and flavour references were the dominant theme on the front of the can. The Panel noted that fruit flavours were commonly found in soft drink beverages and that such soft drinks often employed a heavy use of fruit imagery on the front of pack to convey their fruit-based nature.  Therefore, due to the label’s strong similarity to a soft drink, the Panel considered that it was incumbent on the packaging to make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to avoid any potential consumer confusion.

The Panel considered the company’s response which highlighted that the words ‘brewing’ and ‘beer’ were included on the front label. However, the Panel considered the presentation of the word ‘beer’, which was written in a dark yellow fine line italicised font on a lighter yellow background, made the text particularly difficult to read. Furthermore, because the word blended into the edges of the line pattern on the label, it was not immediately obvious or clear that the text was there. Therefore, on balance, the Panel considered that while the front label included the word ‘beer’ and the product’s ABV, the word ‘beer’ was not clearly presented, nor was the ABV or beer descriptor given the prominence required on a label which was predominantly focused on fruit-flavours and bore resemblance to a soft drink.

The Panel then considered the side of the can and noted the inclusion of text which described the flavour of the drink.  While the text included some references to the brewing process, the majority of the text described the drink’s fruity and floral flavour with no specific mention of beer or alcohol.  The Panel assessed the back label and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, a pregnancy warning logo, unit content and the word ‘beer’ written in multiple languages.  However, these were not particularly prominent and further best practice information such as a responsible drinking message, the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking guidelines and signposting to Drinkaware were absent from the label.

When discussing the company’s response, the Panel noted that the company had highlighted the Yonder Pink Lemonade precedent a few times to emphasise the similarity in a case where a child had mistakenly consumed an alcoholic drink and which it believed the Panel had concluded that the labelling was sufficient regardless.  The Panel sought to clarify that while Yonder Pink Lemonade had not been found in breach of Code rule 3.2(h), it had been found in breach of Code rule 3.1 for not communicating its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.

The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1 which stated that where there were multiple negative alcohol cues on a drink’s packaging, such as fruit flavours and imagery, it may need to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature and to avoid consumer confusion. In this instance, the Panel was also mindful that there was evidence of consumer confusion where an under-age individual had mistakenly consumed the product due to its perceived similarity to a well-known soft drink.  The Panel considered the above points and concluded that the emphasis on the drink’s fruit flavour, predominant use of fruit imagery and use of the word ‘Radler’, which also appeared on non-alcoholic drinks, meant that the product needed to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature.  The Panel acknowledged that while it was not the intention of the company to obscure the alcoholic nature of the drink, the positive alcohol cues that had been included needed to be enhanced and made clearer to mitigate the risk of consumer confusion.  Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.

Action by Company:

Working with the Advisory Service.

Producer:

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“The product has no clear alcohol labelling and visually resembles an RTD tea, which could mislead consumers about its alcoholic nature. Additionally, if the label is removed after opening, it further reduces transparency regarding the alcohol content, raising additional concerns”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company stated that it did not believe that the drink’s packaging was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The company explained that the product communicated its alcoholic nature through the product name, which prominently stated “Tiramisu Rum Liqueur”; a universally recognised indicator of alcohol. The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) was clearly stated as “20% vol 50cl” on the swing tag and the cork was marked as alcoholic. In addition to this, the descriptive text on the rear tag described the product as “a delicious blend of Caribbean rum, dark chocolate and coffee… creating a decadent liqueur”. The company addressed the suggestion that the product resembled a Ready-To-Drink (RTD) tea and stated that this was unsubstantiated. The company highlighted that the packaging format featured a glass, faceted bottle with a cork-style stopper and gold foiling which was not typical of RTD teas. The company stated this premium styling reflected a high-quality liqueur rather than a casual soft drink. Furthermore, the product was exclusively merchandised within the alcohol section, both in-store and online, reinforcing its alcoholic nature.

The company addressed concerns about the removable swing tag and explained whilst the swing tag was removable, the cork was permanently labelled with the product name “Tiramisu”, the alcoholic descriptor “Rum Liqueur” and “20% ABV” which ensured that the alcoholic nature remained clear. The company stated that further required information was presented on the swing tag at the point of sale and ensured that the product complied with labelling regulations.

As part of its response, the company shared a view from Oxfordshire County Council, the Primary Authority for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd. Oxfordshire Trading Standards (OTS) stated that its relationship with Sainsbury’s was to provide advice regarding the interpretation of Trading Standards legislation, in particular in relation to this matter, areas that covered Food Standards and Fair Trading, including misleading products. OTS confirmed that it had reviewed the complaint and that in its view the product complied with the Food Information to Consumers Regulations (1169/2011) which permitted mandatory food information to appear on a swing tag. OTS highlighted that the product was correctly labelled with the name of the food and its ABV and that its presentation was not misleading in any way. Addressing the other element of the complaint, OTS explained that the bottle design, a high-quality glass with a cork lid, clearly indicated an alcoholic product, not an RTD tea. The view provided by OTS concluded that the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and did not breach the Portman Group’s Code.

The company concluded that the Tiramisu Rum Liqueur complied with the Portman Group’s Code by clearly communicating its alcoholic nature and did not resemble a non-alcoholic drink. The company requested the complaint be reconsidered and expressed confidence in its compliance while remaining open to constructive dialogue.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel considered whether the packaging communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1 which stated that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014. However, the Panel also noted that guidance stipulated that compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1. The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code under the absolute clarity requirement if, in the Panel’s view, it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.

The Panel considered the packaging and noted that the bottle employed a novel design, with textured clear glass and a geometric pattern vertically displayed on one side. The Panel noted that aside from the vertical geometric design, there was nothing else printed on the bottle and it was void of any alcohol-related information on the glass. Instead, the Panel noted that the product’s alcohol health-related information only appeared on a swing tag which included signposting to the Drinkaware website, unit content information, pregnancy warning, the Chief Medical Officers’ Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines and a responsible drinking message. The Panel assessed the swing tag in more detail and noted that it was attached to the bottle with string and displayed a “to” and “from” inside which gave the impression it was a gift tag. The Panel discussed that if the drink was given as a gift, it was likely that the tag would be removed and discarded so that a consumer could peel off the protective plastic wrapper to open the product and that this was also compounded by the cultural assumption that most people would remove a gift tag before using a gift. Furthermore, the elasticated string meant that the swing tag could be easily pulled over the drink’s neck and as it was not securely fastened could easily be removed, intentionally or accidentally, in a home or retail environment. The Panel discussed two comparable precedent cases, Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur and Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur, and noted that in its previous decisions it had concluded that swing tag labels which were easily removable could cause confusion as to the alcoholic nature of the drink if that information was not clearly repeated on the primary packaging.

With that in mind, the Panel then assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel noted that the drink was sealed with a large cork stopper which had the words “Rum Liqueur” and “20% vol” printed on it. The Panel discussed that the text was embossed onto the golden lid in a light gold text colour and noted that the lack of contrast in the colours meant that it was difficult to read, was not particularly prominent and was not contrasting enough to catch someone’s attention. The Panel further noted that the lid of a drink was not in a field of vison a consumer would normally expect to find alcoholic cues. The Panel discussed that consumers would turn a product around to look at a product in the round when assessing its alcoholic nature but considered that the top and bottom of a product were not typically places where a consumer would expect to find important information regarding a product’s alcoholic nature and that this became more pertinent when a removable swing tag contained the only clear, positive alcohol cues.

The Panel discussed the complainant’s view that the product appeared to be an RTD tea but considered that there was no additional language on the product which supported this assertion or any flavouring that referenced tea. The Panel noted that if the swing tag were removed the overall impression conveyed was not one of any specific drink.

The Panel discussed the producer’s response and noted the producer’s point that the product was exclusively merchandised within the alcohol section, both in-store and online, which in the producer’s view enforced the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the remit of the Code applied solely to product packaging, irrespective of how a product was retailed and considered that ultimately the product would end up in the home-environment as most products in the off-trade would. The Panel also discussed the view provided from Oxfordshire Trading Standards which formed part of the producer’s response. The Panel sought to remind producers that compliance with the law was not always indicative of compliance with Code rule 3.1 and the wording requirement of ‘absolute clarity’. The Panel encouraged producers to carefully consider how a product’s alcoholic nature was communicated and that the minimum requirements in law were not always sufficient under the Code when there was the possibility that a consumer could be misled as to a product’s alcoholic nature if important information was provided on a removable gift tag and further mandatory information was not clearly visible in an unconventional place. The Panel further noted that this position was consistent with precedent that had been established in previous cases regarding Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur and Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur.

Taking this into account, the Panel concluded that in its view, the drink’s packaging did have the capacity to mislead as to the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel considered that it was not sufficient to include the only clearly presented, positive alcohol cues on a removable swing tag that was likely to be removed after purchase or could be accidentally removed even prior to purchase. As established in previous precedent, the Panel noted that if a product incorporated a removable swing tag it should repeat important alcohol-related information on primary packaging in a clear and legible manner. However, in this case, the Panel noted that this mandatory information had been embossed in gold lettering, on a gold-cork lid which it considered was an unconventional place where consumers would not typically seek such important information and that this was not particularly distinguishable or visible in its presentation. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.

Action by Company:

The product has been discontinued

Producer:

Origin Wine Stellenbosch

UK importer:

Tesco Stores Ltd.

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“Combining the text on the back with the known drinking game that shares the same name. The phrase on the back of the bottle, “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too,” is very similar to the well-known drinking game “Fuzzy Duck,” where players alternate saying “Fuzzy Duck” and “Ducky Fuzz,” often leading to confusion and excessive drinking. Because of this, the wording on the label could unintentionally link the product to a drinking game, encouraging immoderate consumption”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 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.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The producer’s response

The company explained that it was willing to work cooperatively and would implement any changes required by the Panel. The company explained that the decision behind the brand and design was to create a unique style of South African wines to showcase the country’s diversity, flexibility and competitiveness against other international wine producers. The company’s aim was to challenge the stigma that only certain countries could succeed in producing specific wine styles. To achieve this, the Fuzzy Duck label was designed to stand out on shelves, using a disruptive style and incorporated an animal, which was a popular trend in wine branding.

The company stated that as part of the design and its participation in UK initiatives like Drinkaware, which promoted conscious alcohol consumption and healthy living, the alcohol levels in Fuzzy Duck products had been made lower compared to similar wine products from other countries.

The importer’s response

The importer stated that it understood the rationale behind the complaint and agreed it did not seem like a clear-cut breach of the Code. The importer welcomed the Panel’s view on the product and volunteered several points for the Panel’s consideration.

The importer explained that it considered the branding and labelling a good fit for the wine style and had not anticipated a breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The importer addressed the concern regarding the phrase on the back of the bottle, “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too”. The importer stated that references to a duck quacking and waddling were common and did not inherently suggest inebriation or promote excessive drinking. The importer also acknowledged the potential concern that the word “doesn’t” in the phrase might reinforce an association with the drinking game involving the phrase “does he?” However, the importer pointed out that “doesn’t” and “does he” differed phonetically, in writing, and in meaning. Additionally, the importer highlighted that the combination of “Fuzzy Duck” and “doesn’t” combined alliteration and internal rhyme and was chosen for that reason without any connection to the drinking game.

The importer stated that the product had a relatively low alcohol by volume (ABV) of 10.5% which it believed did not encourage immoderate consumption. The importer highlighted that the description “Buttery Chardonnay” on the front of the product was more prominent than the product’s name and was likely to have played a greater role in influencing a customer’s decision to purchase it. The importer questioned whether the rubber duck image on the product packaging, typically associated with young children, would appeal to older under-18s who were more at risk of underage drinking and sought the Panel’s view on this point.

The importer stated that it would take the Panel’s view into account regarding all future products it would stock.

The Panel’s assessment

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the drink’s name, ‘Fuzzy Duck’, and noted that the phrase was used in multiple ways, including as a name for restaurants, pubs and a toiletries brand. However, specifically in the context of an alcohol product, the Panel noted that ‘Fuzzy Duck’ referred to a tongue twister drinking game whereby participants were required to correctly say set phrases depending on the order of play. If a participant made a mistake and spoke the incorrect tongue twister, then they would be required to pay a forfeit in the form of consuming a drink. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(f) which stated that encouraging participation in drinking games was unacceptable under the Code as it removed an individual’s capacity to choose and moderate their own alcohol consumption which then became based on the rules of a game instead. The Panel considered that such games directly encouraged intoxication because a person would abdicate personal responsibility when deciding when and how much alcohol to consume and instead allowed the rules of the game to determine their drinking behaviour. The Panel noted the company’s response that the name was intended to stand out on the shelf as part of a recent trend to name drinks after birds. The Panel acknowledged that there was nothing else on the label that related to the drinking game however, equally, there was also no information which explained the intended meaning of ‘Fuzzy Duck’. The Panel discussed that while all consumers may not be familiar with the drinking game, it was reasonably well-known and when considered in the context of an alcoholic drink, the name and the game were inextricably linked. The Panel expressed concern that any reference to a drinking game in alcohol marketing was unacceptable because of the strong association with intoxication and drunkenness.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label and noted that the back label included the sentence “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too”. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that ‘waddle’ referred to the common way that ducks walked but considered that ‘waddle’ could also refer to a person being unsteady on their feet due to drunkenness. In the context of a drinking game that encouraged drunkenness, the Panel stated that in this instance ‘waddle’ emphasised the link between the packaging and immoderate consumption.

After much discussion regarding the above points, the Panel considered, that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Fuzzy Duck’ the drinking game was sufficiently well-known and that most consumers would recognise the link between the drink’s name and the game. The Panel acknowledged that the link was not intentional but warned producers that any inclusion or reference to drinking games in alcohol marketing would not be acceptable under the Code due to their inherent link with drunkenness and intoxication. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption and the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

At the Preliminary Investigation stage, the Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(h) for discussion by the Panel to determine whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that while the front label was fairly minimal in design, it included a large and prominent image of a rubber duck. The Panel discussed rubber ducks and noted that they were primarily bath toys targeted at young children and toddlers. The Panel considered that while rubber ducks could be collector pieces or novelty items sometimes handed to adults in a branded capacity, they remained a popular child’s bathtime toy easily recognised by children. Furthermore, the Panel noted that novelty rubber ducks aimed at adults tended to be painted or decorated in ornate and unusual ways to differentiate them from the standard yellow toy. The Panel considered the image of the duck in more detail and noted that it had large eyes, raised eyebrows and a bill that was upturned, which gave the impression that it was smiling. The Panel noted that the facial expression made it appear welcoming and friendly, and considered that its large eyes would be engaging to younger children who were drawn to such features. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the duck was presented as a recognisable classic yellow toy which further enhanced the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Taking the above elements into account, the Panel considered that the inclusion of a large-eyed, smiling, rubber duck, which would be recognised by younger children as a bathtime toy, meant that the packaging would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel sought to remind producers that the inclusion of any children’s toy on packaging would be unacceptable under the Code regardless of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. Accordingly, the Panel found the product in breach of Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

The product would no longer be imported to the UK.