Producer:

Global Brands Ltd

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I would like to express my concerns around a product I have recently seen advertised on social media which is available in shops now. It is called VK Squashka and is a highly alcoholic drink at almost 8%. As a parent I am very concerned that this could easily appeal to children particularly given its childlike flavours – apple and blackcurrant, orange and pineapple and cherries and berries- along with its colourful packaging in a carton which is synonymous with children’s drinks. Using the word ‘squash’ in the title of an alcoholic drink is totally inappropriate”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

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

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)

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)

3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint to ensure that its products were fully aligned with the Code. The company understood the complaint primarily related to Code rule 3.2(h) and whether the product packaging, naming or marketing had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company submitted that the packaging did not breach the Code rule when assessed in line with the Panel’s established approach, which required consideration of the overall impression of a product rather than individual elements viewed in isolation.

While not subject to complaint, the company stated that the drink communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the main body of the packaging had at least six explicit alcohol cues which included:

• The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) positioned at the top of the packaging to elevate it in the reading hierarchy. This was also included on the back label;
• The use of the word Vodka as part of the product descriptor which was repeated on the back label;
• The VK brand logo which was well established and recognised widely by UK consumers as an alcoholic drinks brand;
• Alcohol health-related information which included a drink responsibly message and signposting to Drinkaware;
• Inclusion of an 18+ logo.

When taken together, these elements ensured that communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature was dominant on packaging.

The company addressed the concern regarding the use of a Tetra Pak format. The company noted that the Panel had previously stated that unconventional packaging formats were not inherently problematic under the Code. Additionally, the company stated that it was important to consider the wider industry and regulatory context in which decisions on containers were being made. The increased use of alternative packaging formats, including cartons, across the alcoholic drinks sector, had been accelerated by environmental considerations and by regulatory changes, which included the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations in the UK. The company explained that those measures had contributed to a broader shift across the alcoholic drinks sector toward alternative packaging formats with lower environmental impact. Within that context, the adoption of a Tetra Pak format for VK Squashka reflected broader category and regulatory trends rather than any attempt to emulate a child’s product. In addition to this, the company explained that several further contextual factors were relevant for consideration including:

• The Tetra Pak format was well-established in alcoholic beverages globally, including products across the UK and Europe;
• The closure used was a re-closable spout system designed for adult beverage consumption, which was materially different from straw-based systems commonly associated with children’s drinks. When Tetra Paks had been used in children’s products, it was almost exclusively paired with a straw;
• The re-closable spout supported adult consumption patterns and moderation, rather than single-use drinking behaviour;
• The Panel had previously confirmed that packaging format alone did not determine appeal to under-18s.

When viewed in that regulatory, environmental and category context, the company stated that the packaging format did not mimic children’s drinks in a manner that would create an appeal to under-18s, especially when combined with the strong and repeated alcoholic cues.

The company explained that the colourways and graphic treatment used on the packaging was intentionally adult-led. The colours used were tempered through the consistent use of black and darker base tones combined with bold condensed typography. The company stated that these elements were aligned with established market designs for Ready To Drink’s (RTD) rather than children’s soft drinks. Furthermore, there were no use of childish illustrations, playful mascots, or imagery commonly associated with products directed at children.

The company highlighted that the flavours used were fruit-based descriptors which were also widely established across the category and wider market. The company noted that previous Panel precedent made clear that breaches typically occur where confectionery style flavour names are combined with playful typography and sweetshop visual language, rather than from fruit flavours alone. In this case, the drink did not use confectionery or novelty flavour language, nor did it cluster multiple childlike cues.

The company explained that the term ‘squashka’ was commonly understood in UK drinking culture to describe a mixed drink of vodka and squash. The drink’s name was not playful or fabricated and “squashka” functioned as a descriptive cocktail term. The company stated that the name would be understood by adult consumers, rather than create an appeal to under-18s and had sought independent legal advice to validate that point.

The company stated that wider marketing activity for the drink online included strict age gating and targeted controls. Creative executions in-store were adult in tone and situated within alcohol retail environments with visual treatment that was dark and adult coded. Therefore, the company stated that accompanying product marketing did not create a particular appeal to under-18s either.

The company concluded that the packaging aligned with established Panel precedents and did not create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel’s assessment

3.1

As part of its consideration of the product and addressing the company’s response to the complaint, the Panel raised Code rule 3.1 for discussion to determine whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel first assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 500ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that, at the time of complaint, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and were more typically associated with soft drinks in the UK. The Panel acknowledged the company’s point that the decision to use that type of container was driven by wider regulatory circumstances and clarified that Tetra Paks were not inherently problematic under the Code. However, the Panel noted that Tetra Paks were a novel style of packaging which consumers would not readily link with alcohol as they were a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.1 which stated that novel containers needed to work harder to ensure that a drink’s alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity in order to minimise consumer confusion. The Panel noted that guidance stated that this could be achieved by including multiple recognisable positive alcohol cues on the front and back of packaging and should be presented in a clear and unambiguous way.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel reviewed the front label where ‘VK’ and ‘Squashka’ were displayed prominently in large, bold, white text with black keylines which emphasised the words as the focal point of the label. The Panel discussed that the brand name ‘VK’ would not necessarily be a positive alcohol cue for consumers, as some may not be aware of the brand and therefore it could not solely be relied upon to denote that the drink was alcoholic which was also consistent with accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1. The Panel then considered the descriptor ‘Squashka’ and discussed how it would be understood by the average consumer. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was a reference to a cocktail serve which consisted of mixing vodka with squash. However, the Panel noted that ‘Squashka’ was mainly drunk by a younger adult demographic and considered that it was not possible to assume that all consumers within the target demographic of 18-24 year olds, and those outside of it, would be familiar with the serve name or that it was an alcoholic drink. The Panel expressed concern that for those who were unaware, the emphasis on ‘squash’ in the name, as a more commonly known soft drink, could mean that the drink was mistaken for a soft drink particularly when used on a Tetra Pak format which was also heavily associated with non-alcoholic beverages. The Panel considered that as ‘Squashka’ was not a well-recognised alcoholic descriptor, and was more commonly associated with a soft drink, the name could cause confusion as to the drink’s alcoholic nature when seen in the context of the overall product packaging and labelling.

The Panel reviewed the rest of the packaging and noted that the back label included several positive alcohol cues such as references to ‘vodka mix’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and unit content information. Additionally, the Panel noted that the back label included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol which were all presented in small white text alongside recycling information and the company’s details. On the front label, the Panel noted that some positive alcohol cues were included such as the product’s ABV and legal name of the drink ‘Vodka’. On the Apple and Blackcurrant variant of the drink, the ABV was displayed in a yellow oval shape on the top of the label as ‘alc 7% vol’. The Panel discussed the presentation of the ABV and considered that while the yellow text contrasted with the purple background, it was displayed in a smaller font comparatively to the rest of the label meaning it was less conspicuous. The Panel further noted that the legal name ‘vodka’ appeared at the bottom of the packaging in small text underneath the flavour descriptor ‘apple and blackcurrant’, which had been presented in a larger font size and given more prominence, and as a result ‘vodka’ was less discernible. In the context of the brand name ‘Squashka’, the Panel considered that the apple and blackcurrant flavour of the drink was highly recognisable as a squash flavour. The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the colour scheme, purple with green and red highlights, which placed further emphasis on the fruit flavour rather than denoting the drink’s alcoholic content.

The Panel carefully considered these factors and acknowledged that while there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging the majority were on the back label. While it was not a requirement of the Code to include specific information on the front label, the flavour, colours, ‘Squashka’ name and Tetra Pak container all created a strong resemblance to a soft drink. The Panel considered that it was therefore imperative that the packaging should make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to minimise any potential consumer confusion. However, in this particular case, the Panel considered that the minimal positive alcohol cues on the label did not go far enough to mitigate the cumulative effect of the product’s soft drink similarities. On balance, while the product did meet the minimum standards set by labelling regulations, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the ‘Squashka’ name, a flavour commonly associated with squash, the colours and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink and therefore could reasonably cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(e) for discussion to determine whether the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. The Panel assessed the label and noted that the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ appeared at the top of the drink by the lid. The Panel considered the meaning of ‘Party Started’ was ambiguous. It could mean that the drink was intended to be drunk at the start of an occasion and therefore was suggesting a time to best enjoy the drink. However, the Panel considered that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Party Started’ was also a common idiomatic phrase that meant the fun would begin and the phrase was juxtaposed to suggest that the drink would provide both the flavour and the moment when the party would be started, suggesting alcohol was integral to the success of the event . The Panel noted guidance for Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that alcohol should not be portrayed as a key part in the success of an event, or that the presence or consumption of alcohol could transform a dull or boring occasion into a more lively or successful one. The Panel considered that ‘Party Started’ could suggest that the presence of alcohol had acted as a catalyst to the success and enjoyment of the party. The Panel noted that this interpretation was compounded by the line appearing close to the lid where consumers would only read it upon opening the container; this further linked an improved party atmosphere with alcohol consumption. The Panel acknowledged the ambiguous nature of the line and noted that while the company may not have intended for the line to be interpreted in such a manner, where the meaning of a phrase was ambiguous and left open to interpretation, there would be an increased risk of inadvertently breaching the Code as was the case here. On that basis, the Panel concluded that in the context of an alcoholic drink, the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ suggested that consumption of the drink would lead to social success. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(f) for discussion to determine whether the packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it contained 3.5 units of alcohol in a resealable 500ml container. The Panel considered that where a container was easily resealable, there was an established cultural assumption that the drink could be consumed over more than one occasion unless additional factors suggested otherwise. The Panel also noted that the number of units of alcohol in the container was not overly high if it was drunk over more than one occasion. However, the Panel noted that this was not the only consideration under Code rule 3.2(f) and packaging could still be deemed problematic if it included language or imagery that could encourage immoderate consumption; defined in guidance as consuming more than four units of alcohol by one person in one sitting.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that it included a drink responsibly message, other alcohol health-related information and a recycling message which read ‘Drink. Dance. Recycle. Repeat’. The Panel considered that the line was likely a reference to a song by Fat Boy Slim ‘Eat, Sleep, Rave, Repeat’ and was playfully encouraging good environmental practices. However, the line also categorically linked to alcohol consumption and encouraged a person to drink and then repeat this action with another drink. The instruction to ‘recycle’ meant that the implication was that a person should consume more than one carton at a time, as one would only dispose of the container when it was empty. The Panel considered that the implication was therefore that a person should drink the entire amount, then recycle the packaging and repeat. The Panel reiterated the point it made during its consideration of Code rule 3.2(e) and noted that the broad phraseology of the line meant that it was open to interpretation and in this case the literal reading of it encouraged consumption of more than one drink in one sitting, thereby taking a consumer to seven units in one sitting even if only two were consumed. The Panel acknowledged that the breach was likely an inadvertent one, with the intention to promote recycling rather than to encourage the consumption of multiple drinks in one session but nevertheless concluded that the line encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel reiterated that, at the time of complaint, a Tetra Pak was not a standard container for an alcoholic drink but emphasised that in line with Portman Group guidance non-conventional packaging would not automatically create a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel explained that while innovative packaging was unlikely to cause a direct breach in and of itself, its presentation could be a contributing factor depending on design and therefore careful assessment was required.  The Panel considered the company’s response which explained that ‘Squashka’ differed from a typical children’s drink carton which usually had a straw based serve system and ‘Squashka’ in contrast had a resealable lid. The Panel discussed the wider use of Tetra Paks in the drinks market and stated that while some children’s drinks included a straw, that was not always the case. The Panel noted that some milk-based products in Tetra Paks were marketed at children and did not include a straw and instead had a resealable lid mechanism similar to ‘Squashka’. The Panel discussed soft drinks that currently appeared in a Tetra Pak format and acknowledged that the packaging was used for soft drinks that were adult targeted but also used for some drinks that were targeted at children. On those grounds, the Panel stated that the Tetra Pak format in and of itself did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s but considered that because it was a packaging format also used for children’s drinks producers would need to proceed with caution when using novel packaging in the alcoholic drinks market to ensure that the presentation of the packaging did not particularly resonate with the under-18s demographic.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the drink’s name ‘Squashka’ presented in large bold white text with a thick black key line. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that thick black key lines were often used in children’s marketing to make images or words more distinguishable for them and the design more engaging. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was intended to communicate a cocktail serve which consisted of vodka and squash mixed together. The Panel repeated that the cocktail serve may not be well recognised outside of a young adult demographic and for the average consumer, the name highlighted the ‘squash’ ingredient of the drink. The Panel noted that ‘Squash’ was a very well-recognised descriptor for dilutable juice in the UK and the emphasis on this ingredient would increase the appeal the drink would have to children who would not recognise it as an adult-only beverage. The Panel discussed squash products and noted that the ranges which were targeted at both children and adults had simple sweet fruit flavours in comparison to other ranges that had been launched in recent years that were specifically targeted at adults with more complex flavour pairings and sophisticated artwork. The Panel noted that  the simpler fruit flavours of squash were one of the primary drinks in the UK consumed by young children for hydration, as it made water more palatable for that age range. The Panel considered that the ‘apple and blackcurrant’ flavour of the drink would be recognised by children as a familiar flavour of squash as it was commonly used in drinks aimed at children.

The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the packaging and noted the inclusion of purple, red and green as the colours represented the fruit flavours and accentuated the drink’s resemblance to its soft drink counterpart.  In addition to this, the Panel discussed the bright contrasting colour palette which included secondary colours and considered that this would be visually stimulating for children. While acknowledging that adults also consumed squash, the Panel stated that because of a child’s predisposition to enjoy simple, sweet flavours and the fewer drink options in that segment of the market specifically targeted at that age bracket squash was a highly popular drink for under-18s and would strongly appeal to them. In this case, the Panel noted that the packaging placed a significant emphasis on ‘squash’ and considered that the name had an elevated risk, which when placed in the context of a Tetra Pak with a sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel expressed concern that the name and its crossover appeal could often lead to situations where the product and its associated marketing could inadvertently breach responsible alcohol marketing rules because of the name’s high baseline of appeal to under-18s.

In the context of the packaging, the Panel concluded that the reference to ‘squash’ in the drink’s name, the novel style packaging, the sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline all contributed to an overall impression which meant the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

Working with the Advisory Service.

Producer:

Global Brands Ltd

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I would like to express my concerns around a product I have recently seen advertised on social media which is available in shops now. It is called VK Squashka and is a highly alcoholic drink at almost 8%. As a parent I am very concerned that this could easily appeal to children particularly given its childlike flavours – apple and blackcurrant, orange and pineapple and cherries and berries- along with its colourful packaging in a carton which is synonymous with children’s drinks. Using the word ‘squash’ in the title of an alcoholic drink is totally inappropriate”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

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

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)

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)

3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint to ensure that its products were fully aligned with the Code. The company understood the complaint primarily related to Code rule 3.2(h) and whether the product packaging, naming or marketing had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company submitted that the packaging did not breach the Code rule when assessed in line with the Panel’s established approach, which required consideration of the overall impression of a product rather than individual elements viewed in isolation.

While not subject to complaint, the company stated that the drink communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the main body of the packaging had at least six explicit alcohol cues which included:

• The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) positioned at the top of the packaging to elevate it in the reading hierarchy. This was also included on the back label;
• The use of the word Vodka as part of the product descriptor which was repeated on the back label;
• The VK brand logo which was well established and recognised widely by UK consumers as an alcoholic drinks brand;
• Alcohol health-related information which included a drink responsibly message and signposting to Drinkaware;
• Inclusion of an 18+ logo.

When taken together, these elements ensured that communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature was dominant on packaging.

The company addressed the concern regarding the use of a Tetra Pak format. The company noted that the Panel had previously stated that unconventional packaging formats were not inherently problematic under the Code. Additionally, the company stated that it was important to consider the wider industry and regulatory context in which decisions on containers were being made. The increased use of alternative packaging formats, including cartons, across the alcoholic drinks sector, had been accelerated by environmental considerations and by regulatory changes, which included the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations in the UK. The company explained that those measures had contributed to a broader shift across the alcoholic drinks sector toward alternative packaging formats with lower environmental impact. Within that context, the adoption of a Tetra Pak format for VK Squashka reflected broader category and regulatory trends rather than any attempt to emulate a child’s product. In addition to this, the company explained that several further contextual factors were relevant for consideration including:

• The Tetra Pak format was well-established in alcoholic beverages globally, including products across the UK and Europe;
• The closure used was a re-closable spout system designed for adult beverage consumption, which was materially different from straw-based systems commonly associated with children’s drinks. When Tetra Paks had been used in children’s products, it was almost exclusively paired with a straw;
• The re-closable spout supported adult consumption patterns and moderation, rather than single-use drinking behaviour;
• The Panel had previously confirmed that packaging format alone did not determine appeal to under-18s.

When viewed in that regulatory, environmental and category context, the company stated that the packaging format did not mimic children’s drinks in a manner that would create an appeal to under-18s, especially when combined with the strong and repeated alcoholic cues.

The company explained that the colourways and graphic treatment used on the packaging was intentionally adult-led. The colours used were tempered through the consistent use of black and darker base tones combined with bold condensed typography. The company stated that these elements were aligned with established market designs for Ready To Drink’s (RTD) rather than children’s soft drinks. Furthermore, there were no use of childish illustrations, playful mascots, or imagery commonly associated with products directed at children.

The company highlighted that the flavours used were fruit-based descriptors which were also widely established across the category and wider market. The company noted that previous Panel precedent made clear that breaches typically occur where confectionery style flavour names are combined with playful typography and sweetshop visual language, rather than from fruit flavours alone. In this case, the drink did not use confectionery or novelty flavour language, nor did it cluster multiple childlike cues.

The company explained that the term ‘squashka’ was commonly understood in UK drinking culture to describe a mixed drink of vodka and squash. The drink’s name was not playful or fabricated and “squashka” functioned as a descriptive cocktail term. The company stated that the name would be understood by adult consumers, rather than create an appeal to under-18s and had sought independent legal advice to validate that point.

The company stated that wider marketing activity for the drink online included strict age gating and targeted controls. Creative executions in-store were adult in tone and situated within alcohol retail environments with visual treatment that was dark and adult coded. Therefore, the company stated that accompanying product marketing did not create a particular appeal to under-18s either.

The company concluded that the packaging aligned with established Panel precedents and did not create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel’s assessment

3.1

As part of its consideration of the product and addressing the company’s response to the complaint, the Panel raised Code rule 3.1 for discussion to determine whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel first assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 500ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that, at the time of complaint, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and were more typically associated with soft drinks in the UK. The Panel acknowledged the company’s point that the decision to use that type of container was driven by wider regulatory circumstances and clarified that Tetra Paks were not inherently problematic under the Code. However, the Panel noted that Tetra Paks were a novel style of packaging which consumers would not readily link with alcohol as they were a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.1 which stated that novel containers needed to work harder to ensure that a drink’s alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity in order to minimise consumer confusion. The Panel noted that guidance stated that this could be achieved by including multiple recognisable positive alcohol cues on the front and back of packaging and should be presented in a clear and unambiguous way.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel reviewed the front label where ‘VK’ and ‘Squashka’ were displayed prominently in large, bold, white text with black keylines which emphasised the words as the focal point of the label. The Panel discussed that the brand name ‘VK’ would not necessarily be a positive alcohol cue for consumers, as some may not be aware of the brand and therefore it could not solely be relied upon to denote that the drink was alcoholic which was also consistent with accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1. The Panel then considered the descriptor ‘Squashka’ and discussed how it would be understood by the average consumer. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was a reference to a cocktail serve which consisted of mixing vodka with squash. However, the Panel noted that ‘Squashka’ was mainly drunk by a younger adult demographic and considered that it was not possible to assume that all consumers within the target demographic of 18-24 year olds, and those outside of it, would be familiar with the serve name or that it was an alcoholic drink. The Panel expressed concern that for those who were unaware, the emphasis on ‘squash’ in the name, as a more commonly known soft drink, could mean that the drink was mistaken for a soft drink particularly when used on a Tetra Pak format which was also heavily associated with non-alcoholic beverages. The Panel considered that as ‘Squashka’ was not a well-recognised alcoholic descriptor, and was more commonly associated with a soft drink, the name could cause confusion as to the drink’s alcoholic nature when seen in the context of the overall product packaging and labelling.

The Panel reviewed the rest of the packaging and noted that the back label included several positive alcohol cues such as references to ‘vodka mix’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and unit content information. Additionally, the Panel noted that the back label included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol which were all presented in small white text alongside recycling information and the company’s details. On the front label, the Panel noted that some positive alcohol cues were included such as the product’s ABV and legal name of the drink ‘Vodka’. On the orange and pineapple variant of the drink, the ABV was displayed in a yellow oval shape on the bottom of the label as ‘alc 7% vol’. The Panel discussed the presentation of the ABV and considered that while the yellow text contrasted with the orange background, it was displayed in a smaller font comparatively to the rest of the label meaning it was less conspicuous. The Panel further noted that the legal name ‘vodka’ appeared at the bottom of the packaging in small text underneath the flavour descriptor ‘orange and pineapple’, which had been presented in a larger font size and given more prominence, and as a result ‘vodka’ was less discernible. In the context of the brand name ‘Squashka’, the Panel considered that the orange and pineapple flavour of the drink was highly recognisable as a squash flavour. The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the colour scheme, orange with green and yellow highlights, which placed further emphasis on the fruit flavour rather than denoting the drink’s alcoholic content.

The Panel carefully considered these factors and acknowledged that while there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging the majority were on the back label. While it was not a requirement of the Code to include specific information on the front label, the flavour, colours, ‘Squashka’ name and Tetra Pak container all created a strong resemblance to a soft drink. The Panel considered that it was therefore imperative that the packaging should make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to minimise any potential consumer confusion. However, in this particular case, the Panel considered that the minimal positive alcohol cues on the label did not go far enough to mitigate the cumulative effect of the product’s soft drink similarities. On balance, while the product did meet the minimum standards set by labelling regulations, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the ‘Squashka’ name, a flavour commonly associated with squash, the colours and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink and therefore could reasonably cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(e) for discussion to determine whether the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. The Panel assessed the label and noted that the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ appeared at the top of the drink by the lid. The Panel considered the meaning of ‘Party Started’ was ambiguous. It could mean that the drink was intended to be drunk at the start of an occasion and therefore was suggesting a time to best enjoy the drink. However, the Panel considered that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Party Started’ was also a common idiomatic phrase that meant the fun would begin and the phrase was juxtaposed to suggest that the drink would provide both the flavour and the moment when the party would be started, suggesting alcohol was integral to the success of the event . The Panel noted guidance for Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that alcohol should not be portrayed as a key part in the success of an event, or that the presence or consumption of alcohol could transform a dull or boring occasion into a more lively or successful one. The Panel considered that ‘Party Started’ could suggest that the presence of alcohol had acted as a catalyst to the success and enjoyment of the party. The Panel noted that this interpretation was compounded by the line appearing close to the lid where consumers would only read it upon opening the container; this further linked an improved party atmosphere with alcohol consumption. The Panel acknowledged the ambiguous nature of the line and noted that while the company may not have intended for the line to be interpreted in such a manner, where the meaning of a phrase was ambiguous and left open to interpretation, there would be an increased risk of inadvertently breaching the Code as was the case here. On that basis, the Panel concluded that in the context of an alcoholic drink, the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ suggested that consumption of the drink would lead to social success. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(f) for discussion to determine whether the packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it contained 3.5 units of alcohol in a resealable 500ml container. The Panel considered that where a container was easily resealable, there was an established cultural assumption that the drink could be consumed over more than one occasion unless additional factors suggested otherwise. The Panel also noted that the number of units of alcohol in the container was not overly high if it was drunk over more than one occasion. However, the Panel noted that this was not the only consideration under Code rule 3.2(f) and packaging could still be deemed problematic if it included language or imagery that could encourage immoderate consumption; defined in guidance as consuming more than four units of alcohol by one person in one sitting.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that it included a Drink Responsibly” message, other alcohol health-related information and a recycling message which read ‘Drink. Dance. Recycle. Repeat’. The Panel considered that the line was likely a reference to a song by Fat Boy Slim: ‘Eat, Sleep, Rave, Repeat’ and was playfully encouraging good environmental practices. However, the line also categorically linked to alcohol consumption and encouraged a person to drink and then repeat this action with another drink. The instruction to ‘recycle’ meant that the implication was that a person should consume more than one carton at a time, as one would only dispose of the container when it was empty. The Panel considered that the implication was therefore that a person should drink the entire amount, then recycle the packaging and repeat. The Panel reiterated the point it made during its consideration of Code rule 3.2(e) and noted that the broad phraseology of the line meant that it was open to interpretation and in this case the literal reading of it encouraged consumption of more than one drink in one sitting, thereby taking a consumer to seven units in one sitting even if only two were consumed. The Panel acknowledged that the breach was likely an inadvertent one, with the intention to promote recycling rather than to encourage the consumption of multiple drinks in one session but nevertheless concluded that the line encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel reiterated that, at the time of complaint, a Tetra Pak was not a standard container for an alcoholic drink but emphasised that in line with Portman Group guidance non-conventional packaging would not automatically create a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel explained that while innovative packaging was unlikely to cause a direct breach in and of itself, its presentation could be a contributing factor depending on design and therefore careful assessment was required.  The Panel considered the company’s response which explained that ‘Squashka’ differed from a typical children’s drink carton which usually had a straw based serve system and ‘Squashka’ in contrast had a resealable lid. The Panel discussed the wider use of Tetra Paks in the drinks market and stated that while some children’s drinks included a straw, that was not always the case. The Panel noted that some milk-based products in Tetra Paks were marketed at children and did not include a straw and instead had a resealable lid mechanism similar to ‘Squashka’. The Panel discussed soft drinks that currently appeared in a Tetra Pak format and acknowledged that the packaging was used for soft drinks that were adult targeted but also used for some drinks that were targeted at children. On those grounds, the Panel stated that the Tetra Pak format in and of itself did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s but considered that because it was a packaging format also used for children’s drinks producers would need to proceed with caution when using novel packaging in the alcoholic drinks market to ensure that the presentation of the packaging did not particularly resonate with the under-18s demographic.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the drink’s name ‘Squashka’ presented in large bold white text with a thick black key line. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that thick black key lines were often used in children’s marketing to make images or words more distinguishable for them and the design more engaging. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was intended to communicate a cocktail serve which consisted of vodka and squash mixed together. The Panel repeated that the cocktail serve may not be well recognised outside of a young adult demographic and for the average consumer, the name highlighted the ‘squash’ ingredient of the drink. The Panel noted that ‘Squash’ was a very well-recognised descriptor for dilutable juice in the UK and the emphasis on this ingredient would increase the appeal the drink would have to children who would not recognise it as an adult-only beverage. The Panel discussed squash products and noted that the ranges which were targeted at both children and adults had simple sweet fruit flavours in comparison to other ranges that had been launched in recent years that were specifically targeted at adults with more complex flavour pairings and sophisticated artwork. The Panel noted that the simpler fruit flavours of squash were one of the primary drinks in the UK consumed by young children for hydration, as it made water more palatable for that age range. The Panel considered that the ‘orange and pineapple’ flavour of the drink would be recognised by children as a familiar flavour of squash as it was commonly used in drinks aimed at children.

The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the packaging and noted the inclusion of orange, yellow and green as the colours represented the fruit flavours and accentuated the drink’s resemblance to its soft drink counterpart.  In addition to this, the Panel discussed the bright contrasting colour palette which included secondary colours and considered that this would be visually stimulating for children. While acknowledging that adults also consumed squash, the Panel stated that because of a child’s predisposition to enjoy simple, sweet flavours and the fewer drink options in that segment of the market specifically targeted at that age bracket squash was a highly popular drink for under-18s and would strongly appeal to them. In this case, the Panel noted that the packaging placed a significant emphasis on ‘squash’ and considered that the name had an elevated risk, which when placed in the context of a Tetra Pak with a sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel expressed concern that the name and its crossover appeal could often lead to situations where the product and its associated marketing could inadvertently breach responsible alcohol marketing rules because of the name’s high baseline of appeal to under-18s.

In the context of the packaging, the Panel concluded that the reference to ‘squash’ in the drink’s name, the novel style packaging, the sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline all contributed to an overall impression which meant the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

Working with the Advisory Service.

 

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

 “I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Throw out the rulebook with juicy strawberry, zesty lime and fizzy cola, colliding in a mix made for mayhem’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;

• 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;

• 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

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

          NOT UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

          UPHELD

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(g)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

          UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

          UPHELD

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.

          UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Twisted Strawberry and Lime’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ‘30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour.  However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual.  An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. This was reinforced by the line that read ‘Throw out the rulebook with juicy strawberry, zesty lime and fizzy cola, colliding in a mix made for mayhem’ which directly linked ‘mayhem’ with consumption of the drink. The Panel stated that glorifying chaos, mayhem and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright red colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, strawberry and lime. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, strawberry and lime, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours.  The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that strawberry and lime was not a flavour that was typically used in an alcoholic drink and while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the  cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.2(j)

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

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

 

 

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ for potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;
• 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;

• 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

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

          NOT UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

          UPHELD

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(g)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

          UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

          UPHELD

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.

          UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the sweet flavour ‘Fruit Salad Frenzy’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour.  However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual.  An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel noted that the drink’s name, ‘Fruit Salad Frenzy’, added to this impression given that ‘frenzied’ behaviour was often seen as wild and uncontrolled. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic, frenzied and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright pink colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying swirls and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, fruit salad. The cactus and swirl imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, fruit salad, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying swirls in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours.  The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet flavoured drink. The Panel considered that fruit salad was not a flavour that was typically used in an alcoholic drink as a well-known sweet and while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s.  Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the  cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(j)

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

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

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 2(a) was raised on the ground that ‘Bright, bold and hits like a bass drop’ potentially placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating nature of a drink;

• 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ for potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;

• 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;

• 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

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

          NOT UPHELD

 

Under Code paragraph 3.2(a)

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(e) 

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

          UPHELD

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(g)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

          UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

          UPHELD

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.

          UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether th drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Electric Blue Raspberry’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(a)

The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the text ‘bright, bold and hits like a bass drop’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel noted that the line ‘hits like a bass drop’ was an idiom used to describe a sudden, powerful, overwhelming emotion or physical sensation. It mirrored electronic dance music, where a bass drop referred to a building section of a composition, which would then give way to a bass driven, high energy chorus. Outside of music, it described a feeling that is felt as well as heard, with similarities to how sub-bass frequencies would be experienced. With that in mind, the Panel discussed how the phrase would likely be understood by consumers in the context of an alcoholic drink. As the phrase did not clarify that the line linked to the flavour of the drink, the Panel considered that the average consumer would interpret it as relating to the intoxicating effect of the alcohol when used in the context of an alcoholic drink. The Panel discussed the two elements of the Code rule and noted that a product did not necessarily have to be of higher alcoholic strength within its category to place undue emphasis on its intoxicating effect. The Panel expressed concern that the use of the verb ‘hit’ suggested that the alcohol would have an impact and that this powerful effect from the alcohol was akin to experiencing a bass drop due to its alcoholic nature.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s the wild spirit that hits with a sweet-sour kick’. The Panel reiterated that any emotive language such as ‘kick’ or ‘hit’ which could be linked to emphasising the strength or intoxicating effect of the alcohol should be used with caution. However, in this specific instance, the Panel noted that the line made clear that it specifically related to the sweet-sour flavour profile. With that in mind, the Panel considered that this was in direct contrast to the text ‘hits like a bass drop’ which did not reference flavour in the same manner and instead created a link to the intoxicating effect of the alcohol. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that without a clarifying statement, the line ‘hits like a bass drop’ went beyond a factual communication and placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the drink. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour.  However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual.  An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright blue colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, blue raspberry. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, blue raspberry, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours.  The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s.  Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the  cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.2(j)

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

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

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;

• 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;

• 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ and ‘you’re only one sip away from texting your ex’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

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

          NOT UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)

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

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

          UPHELD

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(g)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

          UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

          UPHELD

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.

          UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought. The company stated that ‘rebel’ reinforced free thinking and did not in any way suggest laws should be broken, particularly as there was no context to suggest this meaning. The company stated that the Panel had previously considered that “rascal” and “reprobate” were acceptable and stated that ‘rebel’ should be considered in the same ilk.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Red Cherry Rebel’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(b)

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 carefully assessed the packaging and noted that ‘rule breakers’, which was raised as a point of concern by the complainant, did not appear on the label. The Panel clarified that this phrase therefore would not form part of its considerations under Code rule 3.2(b).

The Panel then considered the drink’s name ‘Red Cherry Rebel’ and noted that the word ‘rebel’ appeared on both the front and back label prominently. The Panel discussed the meaning of rebel and noted that it tended to refer to a person that resisted convention or control. The Panel considered that to be a ‘rebel’ or to ‘rebel’ against an action did not necessarily mean that rules or laws would be broken, nor did it mean that such actions would result in antisocial behaviour though this could be the case in some contexts. The Panel stated that ‘rebel’ was often used to refer to independent thinkers or those who went against established convention. This type of person could be found in all walks of life and was not exclusively a reference to someone that engaged in criminal behaviour. The Panel then considered similar case precedents, where the use of the words ‘rebel’, ‘rascal’ and ‘reprobate’ were all found to be acceptable where there was no other association with anti-social or illegal behaviour. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label in its entirety and noted there was nothing else on the packaging which related to criminal activity or suggested that ‘rebel’ was linked to law breaking. As that was the case, the Panel concluded that ‘rebel’ did not create an association with anti-social or illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour.  However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual.  An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright red colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, cherry. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, cherry, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours.  The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s.  Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the  cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.2(j)

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

The Panel then assessed the rest of the label which included the text ‘You’re only one sip away from texting your ex’. The Panel discussed that ‘texting an ex’ described an act of reaching out to a former partner after consuming alcohol as a result of lowered inhibitions. The Panel considered that ‘texting an ex’ was often implied to require bravery through inflated confidence after alcohol consumption and was reinforced by the preceding line ‘You’re only one sip away’ which directly linked a change in behaviour to alcohol consumption.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the lines ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ and ‘You’re only one sip away from texting your ex’ both directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

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

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 2(f): This was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Zesty, fizzy and oh so tasty, made for pre-drinks, big laughs and nights that could go anywhere’ for potentially encouraging irresponsible consumption;

• 2(g): This was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraging rapid/down in one consumption;

• 2(j): This was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for potentially suggesting a change in mood and behaviour.

Decision:

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

          NOT UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

          UPHELD

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(g) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

          UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

          UPHELD

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.

          UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Zesty, fizzy and oh so tasty, made for pre-drinks, big laughs and nights that could go anywhere’ were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment 

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Wicked Green Apple’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour.  However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual.  An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

In addition to this, the Panel considered that this suggestion was exacerbated in the context of the line ‘nights that could go anywhere’ which further insinuated that the alcohol would play a transformative role in the social success of an evening.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ and ‘Zesty, fizzy and oh so tasty, made for pre-drinks, big laughs and nights that could go anywhere’ for consideration.

The Panel discussed the phrase ‘pre-drinks’ and considered that the phrase was synonymous with the drinking habits of those who were in the 18-25 age bracket with less disposable income and referred to the practice of individuals consuming as much alcohol as possible at home to avoid paying for more expensive drinks in the on-trade. The Panel noted that this resulted in a consumption style that was based on consuming a high volume of alcohol in a short space of time rather than factoring in how to moderate alcohol consumption and drink responsibly. A person therefore was often likely to drink more than they would have done otherwise in order to maximise the cost saving. The Panel considered that ‘pre-drinks’ was so synonymous with an irresponsible style of alcohol consumption it was fundamentally inappropriate to include the line in any alcohol marketing. The Panel sought to remind the industry that it was inherently irresponsible to encourage a drinking-style designed for individuals to drink as much as possible in a short space of time to save money. Furthermore, the Panel considered that due to the nature of ‘pre-drinks’ the phrase also created an indirect association with binge-drinking and drunkenness as a result of drinking to excess.

The Panel assessed the rest of the label which included the text ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright green colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, green apple. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, green apple, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours.  The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. As part of the Panel’s consideration of the company’s response to the provisional decision, the Panel noted the company’s point that apple was a fairly common alcoholic drink flavour. The Panel considered that while the apple flavour was not inherently problematic, a fruit flavour would still contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s.  Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour.  The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the  cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(j)

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

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

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;
• 2(g) was raised on the grounds ‘Shoot it straight’ potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;
• 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour

Decision:

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

NOT UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

 UPHELD

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(g). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

UPHELD

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.

 UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the soft drink flavour ‘Cola Kick’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.

The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour.  However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual.  An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ and ‘made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel discussed the four lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, colours and soft drink flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a dark brown colour, synonymous with cola. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, in front of a cola splash and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, cola. The cactus and cola liquid imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, cola, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and a cola splash in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours.  The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a flavour that was typically associated with a soft drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, soft drink flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s.  The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the  cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.2(j)

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the line ‘Made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’. The Panel recapped that in its consideration under Code rule 3.2(f) ‘made for chaos’ had been found to contribute to the impression that the drink was a catalyst for a chaotic and unrestrained evening which encouraged irresponsible consumption. The Panel considered that while the lines created a link with irresponsible consumption, they also inferred that chaotic and unpredictable situations would be the result of a behaviour change caused by consumption of the product.  This was further compounded by ‘guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’, an idiom for injecting momentum into an otherwise slow-moving dancefloor which further emphasised that consumption of the drink would change a person’s behaviour, making them livelier and more energetic.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the lines ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ and ‘made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’ both directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

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

Producer:

Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.

Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.

When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.

As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:

• 3.2(a) was raised on the grounds of ‘This one flirts first, then bites’ for potentially placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic nature or intoxicating effect of a drink.
• 3.2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption.
• 3.2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption.
• 3.2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.

Decision:

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

NOT UPHELD

Under Code paragraph3.2(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(e). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

UPHELD

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(g). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

UPHELD

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.

The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.

The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.

The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.

The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.

The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.

The company explained that the phrase ‘This one flirts first, then bites’ did not reference the alcoholic strength of the drink but rather referred to the recommended serve style and flavour of the drink. The company stated that the wording therefore did not place undue emphasis on the “alcoholic strength or intoxicating effect” and merely referred to the flavour of the product when used to communicate the recommended serve.

The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.

The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.

The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.

The company’s response to the provisional decision

The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.

The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.

The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.

The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.

The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel’s assessment

Code rule 3.1

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Peach Pucker’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.

The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(a)

The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the text ‘this one flirts first, then bites’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel discussed how ‘bite’ would be understood in the context of an alcoholic drink and determined it was usually used to indicate a drink that was particularly strong and therefore had a ‘bite’ during consumption. The Panel considered that the drink’s alcoholic strength was not higher than the category average at 15% alcoholic strength by volume. The Panel discussed the two elements of the Code rule and noted that a product did not necessarily have to be of higher alcoholic strength within its category to place undue emphasis on its intoxicating effect.

The Panel considered that ‘bite’ would likely suggest that the drink had an unexpected quality and noted that the company’s response explained the phrase was intended to communicate the flavour of the drink. The Panel noted that there was nothing in the text which linked or clarified that ‘bite’ was intended to refer to the flavour of the drink.

Without qualifying text to clarify the meaning of ‘bite’ the Panel considered it would therefore be understood as the established meaning in relation to alcohol; a reference to the unexpected intoxicating effect of the drink. This perception was reinforced by the inclusion of the preceding line, that the drink would ‘flirt’ and then ‘bite’ which implied experiencing a powerful effect from the alcoholic content.

The Panel considered the phrase ‘this one flirts first, then bites’ in the context that the product also contained the line ‘Cactus Jack’s the wild spirit that hits with a sweet-sour kick’. The Panel reiterated that any emotive language such as ‘kick’ or ‘hit’ which may be linked to emphasising the strength or effect of the alcohol should be used with caution. However, in this specific instance, the Panel noted that the line made clear it emphatically related to the taste experience of the contradictory flavour profiles. With that in mind, the Panel considered that this was in direct contrast to ‘this one flirts, then bites’. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the language went beyond a factual communication of the drink’s strength and placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the drink. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).

3.2(e)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.

The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.

During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.

The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.

On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(g)

The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.

The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright orange and red colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, peach. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, peach, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.

The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries* which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.

In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.

The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.

The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.

The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.

The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.

In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.

The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

Working with Advisory Service

* Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023