Producer:
BeatBox Netherlands B.V.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I recently saw this product in Morrisons, positioned next to the soft drinks and energy drinks, specifically not in an aisle where they were otherwise selling alcohol. The product has bright, fun imagery which is likely to appeal to under-18s, and is in a ‘juice box’ format. The Fruit Punch flavour variety in particular has tiki masks with the tongues sticking out which is again very likely to appeal to children. The products are 6.1% vol, with 2 units per 330ml carton. I believe this is highly irresponsible marketing of the product, and highly irresponsible of Morrisons to stock this product, especially in the location where they have chosen to stock it in my local store, at the end of the general soft drinks aisle.”
Decision:
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
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 stated that while it was grateful for the opportunity to respond to the complaint, it did not believe that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company understood that for alcohol marketing to hold a particular appeal to under-18s, the packaging would need to resonate with them more than it would with adults. That company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal.
The company was disappointed to learn that the drinks had been placed within a soft drink retailing space as this was not in line with its instructions to the distributor about responsible retailing. Nonetheless, the company understood that retail placement was not an element that would be considered by the Panel in determining compliance with the Code.
The company did not believe that a Tetra Pak carton with a screw cap had an inherent child-like appeal as Tetra Pak products aimed at children typically utilised a smaller 200ml size carton which usually had straws rather than a screw cap function. The packaging used for BeatBox however, was a larger 330ml size and had a resealable lid which facilitated consumers to drink responsibly as the carton could then be resealed. The drink’s packaging resembled other adult-targeted alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages that were available on the market in Tetra Pak form. While some of the soft drinks available had both adult and child variants, the child-targeted packaging was differentiated by its smaller size and inclusion of a straw. Furthermore, the company explained that the Tetra Pak format was becoming increasingly popular with adult consumers. The company submitted research which reflected that the respondents preferred Tetra Paks because of their use of plant-based materials, the ease of disposal, and the low CO2 emissions. The company highlighted global market data and stated that 506 alcoholic beverages used Tetra Paks in the UK and Europe. The company shared a number of alcoholic beverages in Tetra Pak cartons in use globally to support this point. The company explained that Tetra Paks were used for both alcohol beverages and soft drinks and this was the same as cans or bottles, which were not held to a more rigorous standard. The company stated that the prevalence of Tetra Paks in the wine-based and RTD categories meant that they could not be considered as a ‘novel’ form of packaging.
The company accepted that the design included a bold colour scheme but did not believe that this element would have an inherent appeal to under-18s. The company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal. In previous case precedent, bright and contrasting colours had been found to be acceptable provided they were not combined with other child-like cues. The company stated that bold black lines were used sparingly on the packaging and the design adopted a complex, urban and detailed graphic style which drew on aesthetics associated with music, nightlife and festival culture. In the case of Juicy Mango, the colour palette incorporated various shades of green with illustrated orange panels intended to appeal to adults. The company explained the colour palette incorporated a lime green background which did not present as a stark contrast with the predominantly orange artwork panels. Instead, the use of yellow, green and lavender within those panels complemented the orange. The company explained that the most contrast came from the few objects which were blue, but these were not elements which would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The visual style was derived from Pop Art and consciously referenced pop-art influences. The company explained that Pop Art was a mature and historically established art movement originating in the UK and US in the 1950s-1970s and would therefore have an adult appeal as it was not indicative of trends in current youth marketing. Pop art included simple, stylised images with strong keylines but could also be visually busy with a number of individual images. The company referenced case precedent where the Panel had found that 1970s and 1980s musical themes did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the same rationale must be applied to BeatBox which celebrated a style of music created in the 1980s. The name was graphically meant to resemble a “boom box” portable stereo and the images included in the side panels were meant to appeal to legal drinking age adults who had experienced that era. The company explained that the keylines, simplicity and scrapbook type of grouping were part of Pop Art which was an adult-oriented art movement.
The company explained that the images which were used across the range of drinks included shaka hand gestures, palm trees, cocktails, surfboards and tiki masks. These were widely recognised as symbols of relaxation, travel, cocktail culture and as adult lifestyle cues. Stylised imagery of everyday objects was a key characteristic of Pop Art and was represented on the Juicy Mango variant through the use of skulls, salamanders, mangoes, snakes, and Ojo de Dios symbols, all of which had a mature appeal. The company stated the complex detail helped the imagery present in a mature way. Furthermore, there was no inclusion of elements which would be associated with children’s culture, such as cartoon characters, simplified graphics, mascots or playful anthropomorphic imagery on the label.
The company stated that the reliance on keylines as a basis for finding the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(h) would be contrary to previous Panel precedents and placed the company at a competitive disadvantage. The company referenced several precedents which demonstrated that products which employed thick keylines around text did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the precedent examples demonstrated that the Panel had applied an unfair standard to the BeatBox packaging particularly in regard to the use of bold keylines and shading. The company disagreed that all the fonts used on the packaging were ‘chunky’ and noted that there were different types used on the label. The name ‘BeatBox’ employed a straight-line font and the flavour ‘Juicy Mango’ had a thin font which could not be described as ‘chunky’. The company stated that similar fonts had been used on products which were found to be acceptable and so the adverse decision against BeatBox was arbitrary and without evidentiary support.
The company explained that the name ‘BeatBox’ was firmly rooted in adult culture and was a recognised form of vocal percussion that emerged in the 1980s and was closely associated with music, nightlife and as a performance piece. ‘BeatBoxing’ was not a new phenomenon and was used in hip hop music, as a standalone art form and through a cappella groups and EDM music. The name ‘BeatBox’ was therefore not a fun and playful word created by a younger generation but instead had a long history with those who were middle-aged. The company explained that music was important to the brand’s identity with the name and musical cues chosen to appeal to adults. While ‘BeatBox’ was an energetic word, it was not child-coded and could be distinguished from other case precedents which had overtly created a link between a product name and a child’s confectionery item. The brand name was intended to resemble a ‘boom box’ stereo from the 1980s which had been in use when ‘beatboxing’ was developed. ‘Beatboxing’ would appeal to middle-aged adults. The company had also sought advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service regarding the designs as part of its due diligence and sought to implement feedback.
The company explained that BeatBox was purchased by an affiliate of a founding member of the Portman Group in February 2026 and at the time of purchase, the purchaser was unaware of the ongoing complaint. The company was concerned that previously unarticulated rules were applied to the packaging rather than those set forth in the Code and through previous Panel precedent. The company stated that would be fundamentally unfair allowing its competitors to use designs, graphics and colours which it could not. The company stated that those governed by the Code had a legitimate expectation to treat the Code as a complete and accurate statement of the requirements, whereas, the Panel’s had introduced an ‘I know it when I see it standard’.
The company explained that it had requested the complaint be resolved informally with mutually agreed designs and that this request had been repeated by the purchaser when the complaint was brought to its attention. However, the company stated that the Portman Group had repeatedly refused the requests which put it in a difficult position to fulfil its obligations to supply products to wholesalers. Furthermore, the company stated that it understood the Panel Chair could deem a case suitable to proceed through the Informal Resolution Process at any time and noted that if that was possible, the company would be ready to engage with the Portman Group.
The company was concerned that it was the Panel itself rather than the complainant that had raised concerns under Code rule 3.1 This was procedurally unfair. The company stated that the packaging was unambiguously an alcohol product and referenced previous case precedent which demonstrated that novel packaging did not have an inherent appeal to under-18s in isolation. Similarly, where a drink was clearly alcoholic it did not need to present the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) in words. In this case, the packaging of BeatBox included positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, presented as ‘6.1% Vol’ on the top of three sides of the label, with ‘contains alcohol’ on the front label as well. There was a ‘drink responsibly’ message, a pregnancy warning logo and a don’t drink and drive logo alongside a QR code which connected to responsibledrinking.eu and contained a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The packaging exceeded the standards set by UK labelling law and included the ABV on the top of two panels, in a font size the same as the flavour name, with white numbers with black keylines to draw attention to it. The company highlighted case precedents where the Panel had made suggestions to producers where it believed the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be enhanced but had found no breach of the Code. The company requested that the Panel exercise that option in this case if it believed that the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be improved.
The Panel’s assessment
3.1
The Panel raised Code rule 3.1 to consider whether the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the drink’s packaging with absolute clarity.
The Panel assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 330ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that at present in the UK, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and the packaging format was more typically associated with soft drinks aimed at adults and children. The Panel noted the company’s contention that there were 506 flavoured alcohol and wine brands across the UK and continental Europe in 2025 using that packaging format. The Panel noted that the company’s evidence included a document entitled ‘Wines in Tetra Pak in USA’ and included two further pages of ‘RTD alcohol in Tetra Pak in USA’. However, out of the examples shared by the company, the Panel noted that only three of the Tetra Pak products were labelled for sale in the UK market with one screenshot highlighting that one of the products was the first UK RTD sold in Tetra packaging in 2025, further suggesting that they were a new and novel type of packaging in the UK market. While the wider context of the global market was noted, the Panel’s decisions and remit applied to the UK market, and its consideration was based on how an average UK consumer would perceive a product. The Panel acknowledged that the use of Tetra Paks for alcoholic drinks was likely to expand from the current small number in the UK market but at the time of consideration, and in the context of the company’s own market evidence, alcohol beverages in Tetra Paks were still relatively new and represented a small subsection of the UK market. The Panel noted that the purpose of the Code was not to stifle such packaging innovation as long the design of such products complied with the rules.
The Panel discussed the recent precedent regarding VK Squashka, an alcoholic RTD in a 500ml Tetra Pak format, published in May 2026 and shared with the company as part of proceedings. As part of that decision, the Panel had also noted that the Tetra Park format was a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel noted that the VK Squashka precedent reflected the Panel’s application of Code rule 3.1 where it had considered the overall impression conveyed by the product in the context that a Tetra Pak was not a packaging format that UK consumers would readily associated with alcohol and in cases where such product packaging incorporated a number of negative alcohol cues, the packaging needed to ensure that it communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel also discussed precedents raised by the company, including Beavertown Bloody ‘Ell and Loose Juice, where the company had questioned the Panel’s decisions not to find the products in breach of the Code despite recommending improvements to improve the absolute clarity of the products’ alcoholic nature. The Panel stated that every case would be considered on its own merits and a notable difference in this case was the Tetra Pak format which had a significant crossover with soft drinks that UK consumers would not necessarily associate with alcohol, whereas 330ml cans were a common form of packaging in the UK alcohol market. The Panel stated that this did not mean that one format of packaging was preferable over the other, instead, it meant that producers needed to be mindful of how UK consumers would perceive such packaging and consider how this could impact compliance under the Code, particularly rules 3.1 and 3.2(h).
Taking into account the available evidence, the Panel reiterated that the Tetra Pak format was a novel style of packaging which the average UK consumer would not readily link with alcohol. 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 to minimise potential consumer confusion. It was therefore important that recognisable positive alcohol cues were on the label and presented in a clear and unambiguous was. The Panel noted that the guidance stated that the Panel would consider the number of ‘positive’ cues against the number of ‘negative’ cues when determining whether a product’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted that the guidance listed a number of ‘negative’ cues as a warning to producers which included ‘dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery on packaging, novel packaging, overly busy design, cartoon-like illustrations and primary colours’. Guidance stated that no one element would make a drink’s packaging compliant with rule 3.1 and if the cumulative impact of negative cues outweighed the positive ones (such as the ABV, shape of container etc.), the Panel could find the product in breach of the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label and noted that the drink’s name ‘BeatBox’ and flavour descriptor ‘Juicy Mango’ were the most prominent words on the label. The Panel considered that ‘BeatBox’ would generally be understood as a reference to a form of vocal percussion that involved using the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to mimic drum machines and other musical instruments. The Panel discussed that this was the primary meaning of the word which had been acknowledged in the company’s response to the complaint, where it explained that the name was inspired by the vocal style of music. The Panel considered that on that basis, ‘BeatBox’ was not intended to be a phrase or word that consumers would typically associate with an alcoholic drink. The Panel considered the next most prominent words on the front of the packaging which were ‘Juicy Mango’. The Panel considered that mango was a flavour used for alcoholic drinks, but it was also a popular flavour for soft drinks, including squashes, juices and smoothies. The Panel considered that this potentially led to ambiguity regarding the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel expressed concern that in the context of a novel container, the musically themed name and focus on fruit flavour detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that there were some positive cues, including the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) presented as ‘6.1% vol’ on two sides of the packaging. The Panel noted that while the ABV was positioned at the top of the label, it was in smaller text than the brand name and flavour. While the Panel noted that the front label included the text ‘contains alcohol’ at the bottom, this was presented in a relatively small black font and was difficult to read due to the size and the contrast of the bright green background. Alongside this, the label contained abstract and brightly coloured artwork which wrapped around the sides of the container to create a busy visual pattern and distracted from the communication of the alcohol-related information. The Panel noted there were some positive alcohol cues on the reverse label which included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo, a don’t drink and drive warning logo and unit content information, however these were presented in small difficult to read black text at the bottom. The Panel noted that above this information there was white text outlined in a thick black keyline which stated that the drink was ‘best serve chilled’ and the simple descriptor ‘drink’. The Panel considered that a consumer’s eye would naturally be drawn to this information which was far more prominent and easier to read and did not indicate the product’s alcoholic nature compared to the small text at the very bottom of the panel which was difficult to read.
The Panel noted the QR code where consumers could connect to responsibledrinking.eu which contained advice on drinking and moderation, as well as a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The Panel did not believe that a QR code should be used as an indication to consumers that a product contained alcohol. QR codes were present on a range of products, not just alcoholic drinks, and it should not be incumbent on a consumer to scan a product to seek out positive alcohol cues if the primary packaging contained a significant number of cues which detracted from a product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel carefully considered the above elements to determine the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. While there were some positive alcohol cues on the label, most of them were difficult to read and were markedly less visible than the other text which emphasised the word ‘drink’, fruit flavour and link to music. This impression was compounded by the use of bright colours and busy, visually distracting imagery which further detracted from the clear communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature. In the context of 3.1 guidance, the Panel noted that the product incorporated multiple negative cues that had been listed as a warning to producers to be mindful of when ensuring that a product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the company’s point that guidance was not clear enough when detailing what ‘work harder’ entailed under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered that current guidance was clear on what the Panel would consider in terms of positive and negative cues and how these elements could impact the overall impression conveyed. The Panel noted that case precedents also reflected how the rule may be applied, particularly in cases such as VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Blossom Hill Spritz, all of which highlighted how negative cues could detract from clarity regarding a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the company’s purchaser, a member of the Portman Group, had approved and contributed to Portman Group guidance over a number of years. The Panel noted that the rules of the Code were broadly written, with supporting guidance, to provide a degree of flexibility so that standards were not overly prescriptive and reflected the spirit of what the Code was seeking to achieve; a balance between creative and innovative marketing, whilst protecting consumers from harm. The rules could not be written to provide absolute certainty and dictate a bright line of compliance but Portman Group guidance, Panel precedent and the Advisory Service were designed to assist producers in understanding how the Code could be applied. The Panel encouraged the company to liaise with the Portman Group if it believed that improvements could be made to current guidance to assist the industry further.
The Panel noted the company’s assurance that the product met the minimum legal standards in the UK. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to ensure that positive alcohol cues, such as the product’s ABV and alcohol descriptor, were clearly visible, easy to read and not undermined by negative cues such as novel packaging, an overly busy design, a dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery, cartoon like-illustrations and primary colours, all of which were present in this case. Therefore, on balance, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the name, fruit flavour, colourful, busy label and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink. Alongside this, a significant amount of the alcohol information that had been included was in small difficult to read white font on a green background that was less prominent than the fruit flavour and busy visual artwork, in the context of novel packaging that was currently more commonly associated with soft drinks. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to communicate a product’s alcoholic nature to minimise consumer confusion. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and found the product in breach Code rule 3.1.
In respect of the company’s contention that it was procedurally unfair for the Panel to raise Code rule 3.1, the Panel noted Code paragraph 5.24:
The Panel meets to consider the product’s packaging or promotion after having an opportunity to study the dossier. The Panel is not bound to restrict its consideration of the product’s packaging or promotion to the narrow terms of the complaint but may consider the packaging or promotion under any section of the Code that it considers relevant, regardless of whether this section relates to the specific complaint or has been highlighted in the dossier by the Code Secretariat or otherwise.
This had been communicated to the company in writing at the beginning of the complaint process. The Panel noted that roughly 52 case precedents had been referenced during the case, many by the company, and around 40% of the cases cited included the Panel raising additional Code rules of its own accord. Regardless of this, the Panel considered that the company had been given ample opportunity to respond to the concerns raised under rule 3.1 prior to the Panel making its final decision and it had done so. The Panel explained that such a mechanism provided producers with more regulatory certainty as the entirety of the Code was considered rather than relying on multiple complaints and hearings to address any potential issues. In addition to this, the Panel explained that, as an independent body, it was important for it to address packaging and or/ marketing that, in its view, did not meet the standards set by the Code if such matters had been brought to its attention via the formal investigation route to ensure that the high standards of responsible naming, packaging and promotion were applied consistently.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted its decision under Code rule 3.1 and reiterated that at the time of consideration in 2026, Tetra Paks were not well-known containers for an alcoholic drink and were more commonly associated with both adult and children’s soft drinks in the UK market. The Panel discussed the company’s response that ‘BeatBox’ had a screw cap mechanism which differentiated it from soft drinks in Tetra Pak packaging targeted at children as these drinks required the use of a straw to access the liquid. The Panel acknowledged that both adult and children’s soft drinks were common on the UK market in a Tetra Pak format and were therefore not exclusively used for children’s drinks meaning that a Tetra Pak did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s. However, while many soft drinks for children in Tetra Pak containers included a straw, there were also child-targeted products which had a screw cap style lid similar to BeatBox. The Panel therefore reminded alcoholic drink producers that when using a novel container in alcohol marketing, particularly a packaging style that was also used for children’s drinks, caution should be exercised. In such circumstances, the Panel explained that alcohol marketing needed to ensure that the presentation of the packaging had an adult appeal and did not particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel considered the company’s contention that the Panel had inconsistently applied Code rule 3.2(h) across a multitude of design aspects which included the use of keylines, font style, fruit flavour, contrasting colours and artwork. The Panel noted that the company’s response discussed each of these individual elements as separate points to convey the assertion that each aspect did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that guidance to the rule made it clear that both the Panel and the Advisory Service would assess the overall impression conveyed by packaging
and specifically ‘this can mean that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, may change when combined with other elements and create an overall impression which is non-compliant Guidance Note – 3.2(h) – Particular appeal to under-18s, November 2023’.The Panel noted that while it would provide analysis regarding its reasoning relating to each design feature, its conclusion was based on the overall impression conveyed when all of the elements were considered on a cumulative basis.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the brand name ‘BeatBox’ referenced a vocal musical style which was popularised in the 1980s. The Panel agreed that ‘BeatBox’ as a name or reference to musical style would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as it was an established form of music that appealed to a range of ages. Furthermore, the Panel considered some under-18s would be unaware of its meaning or the music style. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label which was brightly coloured with ‘BeatBox’ displayed in large white text with a thick black keyline vertically on the front label. The Panel discussed that while ‘BeatBox’ as a reference to a musical style would not create a particular appeal to under-18s, the typography which employed three thick contrasting keylines meant it stood out and would be particularly eye-catching for those under-18 as a style. The Panel discussed that inclusion of the thick keylines around a chunky font was a feature often used in marketing aimed at under-18s because children found bold keylines attractive as they developed visual perception skills as noted in guidance. In those instances, the attraction for children was not necessarily dictated by the meaning of the word, but instead how it was presented with thick bold outlined text being highly appealing.
The company highlighted that the Panel had permitted other RTDs in previous cases* to use keylines. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that the overwhelming majority of cases analysed were prior to 2022, with one exception cited from 2025. The Panel noted that accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) had been subject to an extensive revision in November 2023 when the Panel and the Portman Group had jointly commissioned Kids Industries, a marketing agency with specific expertise on marketing products aimed at children, to provide insights on marketing techniques that are used to appeal to children and teenagers outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel discussed 3.2(h) guidance (Section 4, page 4) which provided detailed guidance on areas producers should be mindful of under the rule. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that consideration of keylines had featured in Panel decisions from around 2015 onwards. However, guidance from the Portman Group on how Code rule 3.2(h) could be interpreted was extensively developed in 2023 and had led to the current version of guidance which was its most detailed version to date and was the first version to include advice about the use of keylines. The Panel acknowledged that regulatory consistency was important, but the Panel also considered that self-regulatory standards, including guidance behind a rule, could not stay static, and it was important for accompanying guidance to reflect a changing environment, in marketing, in product development, and in society generally. The guidance update had led to enhanced clarification for the Panel in its application of Code rule 3.2(h) and the Panel noted that there were numerous precedents after 2023 which reflected a consistent application of Code rule 3.2(h) that had been shared with the company as part of the case but had not been referenced as part of its response. In particular, the Panel discussed recent precedents including VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Cactus Jacks, all of which included reference to how thick keylines could impact the overall impression conveyed under Code rule 3.2(h). However, the Panel emphasised that while precedents could provide a guide for other producers, every case would be considered on its own merits and ultimately, the overall impression conveyed by a product could lead to instances where a straight read across was not always possible. In cases where interpretation may not be clear-cut, the Panel encouraged producers to use the Portman Group’s Advisory Service. While such advice was not binding on the Panel, and could not provide guaranteed assurance, it was a service that could help producers mitigate risk under the Code.
The Panel noted that the company had sought free, confidential advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service, prior to the purchaser’s acquisition, and the advice had been shared with the Panel under Code paragraph 5.25. In the case of Juicy Mango, the Panel noted that the Advisory Service had stated that in its opinion, the name Juicy Mango was likely to be acceptable under the Code. However, advice also stated:
“We’re afraid we are concerned that the other three designs: Fruit Punch, Juicy Mango and Orange Blast, feature bright colours with high contrast. We know that bright contrasting colours can be particularly appealing to under 18s and so we recommend making the colours softer and less contrasting to minimise the risk under Code rule 3.2(h).”
The Panel noted that the company had been advised to make a change to the design due to the risk the design posed under the Code. While the company was not bound by the advice, and had chosen not to implement the suggested changes, the Panel considered the advice demonstrated that the company was aware of the potential risk of the design.
The Panel discussed the flavour name ‘Juicy Mango’ and noted that while it would have broad appeal to all ages in isolation as had been noted by the Advisory Service, children were genetically predisposed to find sweet and fruit flavours more attractive. Furthermore, the Panel stated that ‘mango’ was a flavour that was commonly used in soft drinks aimed at children and would be recognisable by under-18s as an attractive quality of the drink. The Panel considered that this appeal was compounded by the presentation of ‘Juicy Mango’ which was depicted in a cartoon-like style of font. On balance, the Panel therefore considered that the presentation of the drink’s name and the sweet fruit flavour would enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s in the context of a Tetra Pak container which was also a format used for children’s soft drinks. The company highlighted that the Panel had previously permitted other RTDs and alcohol beverages to reference fruit flavours, even when the packaging was similar to that of soft drinks, such as 330ml cans. The Panel reiterated that a Tetra Pak was a novel form of packaging for alcoholic drinks in the UK market in 2026. The precedents that the company had cited were primarily products that were either in 330ml cans or bottles that were more established in the UK market as alcohol packaging formats. The Panel stated that when new forms of novel packaging entered the UK market, each needed to be assessed on its own merits, drawing from precedent, the overall impression conveyed and the available evidence at the time. The Panel noted that in the context of novel packaging sharing a packaging format with children’s and adult soft drinks, a sweet fruit flavour in that specific context would be a contributary factor enhancing the appeal a product would have to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the artwork used on the packaging and acknowledged the company’s statement that it had been inspired by the ‘Pop Art’ movement of the 1950s-1970s. The Panel noted that the imagery included abstract shapes such as squares, diamonds and swirls alongside realistic shapes such as horned skulls, mangoes, lizards and snakes. While the presentation of some of the items were abstract, the overall design was visually busy with the artwork presented in a basic cartoon-like style with simple illustrations and black keylines featuring on all of them. The Panel considered that this meant the images were less stylised than classic ‘Pop Art’ artworks, presented less maturely and meant that an intended reference to ‘pop art’ was not necessarily obvious without the company’s explanation. The Panel considered that the buffalo skull, snakes and lizards presented a western inspired look to the artwork and acknowledged that western references would not necessarily resonate with under-18s more than adults, though it was a theme that would nonetheless have a level of appeal to them. The Panel assessed the images which did not include any intricate detail and were presented as simple designs which increased their resemblance to art styles used in children’s media which often had simple designs with uncomplicated cartoon imagery and minimal details. The Panel noted that the images were additionally presented in a haphazard, busy, style very reminiscent of a child’s or teenager’s doodling, which, in the Panel’s view, would further resonate with under-18s as was consistent with similar precedent from Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings. The Panel considered that alongside this, the colour palette used bright primary and secondary colours, yellow, blue, and pink which created a high level of contrast against the orange and green packaging. The Panel was of the view that these were all elements that would resonate with children who would find bright contrasting colours and high luminance levels stimulating and eye-catching as reflected in guidance.
Taking the above elements in combination, the Panel concluded that the typography of the brand name ‘BeatBox’ and cartoon-like font of the ‘Juicy Mango’ flavour both with thick black keylines, novel style packaging that was not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, sweet fruit flavour, bright, contrasting colours and simple cartoon images created a cumulative impact that meant the overall impression conveyed had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel reiterated that no single element in isolation had necessarily caused a breach and that it was the cumulative impact of all of the features that had led to a breach of the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel welcomed the company’s intent to redesign the product to ensure that the design not only reflected the purchaser’s internal marketing standards but also the minimum standards required by the Code.
Finally, the Panel noted the company’s complaint that Portman Group’s Secretariat had declined to move the case to an informal resolution route and therefore prevented the case from being resolved in a swift and mutually agreeable manner. The Chair highlighted clause 5.13 onwards in the Code of Practice which made it clear that the decision as to whether a case should proceed informally or formally was made by the Chair. In this particular case, the case was not considered suitable for informal resolution as it had been deemed potentially precedent setting and not a clear-cut breach of the Code. The complexity and length of the final decision reflected why the case had required consideration by the full Panel and was not suitable for informal resolution.
Action by Company:
Packaging amended after working with the Advisory Service
* Burst Blue Raspberry (2025), Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon (2022), Dragon Soop Strawberry & Lime (2019), Dragon Soop range (2022), Hoola Hooch (2018), Beavertown’s Bloody Ell (2015), Gamma Ray (2015), Neck Oil (2019), multiple Tiny Rebel cases from 2021, Show Off (2019), Buoyancy Aid (2020), Frosty Jack’s Cider (2020), Flagingo Electric Blue Gin Liqueur (2022), Flamingo Tears (2019), Pixie Tears (2019), Desperados (2018), Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake (2011), Stiffy’s Kola Kubez (2011), Funky Monkey Vodka Shots (2006)
Producer:
BeatBox Netherlands B.V.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I recently saw this product in Morrisons, positioned next to the soft drinks and energy drinks, specifically not in an aisle where they were otherwise selling alcohol. The product has bright, fun imagery which is likely to appeal to under-18s, and is in a ‘juice box’ format. The Fruit Punch flavour variety in particular has tiki masks with the tongues sticking out which is again very likely to appeal to children. The products are 6.1% vol, with 2 units per 330ml carton. I believe this is highly irresponsible marketing of the product, and highly irresponsible of Morrisons to stock this product, especially in the location where they have chosen to stock it in my local store, at the end of the general soft drinks aisle.”
Decision:
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
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 stated that while it was grateful for the opportunity to respond to the complaint, it did not believe that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company understood that for alcohol marketing to hold a particular appeal to under-18s, the packaging would need to resonate with them more than it would with adults. That company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal.
The company was disappointed to learn that the drinks had been placed within a soft drink retailing space as this was not in line with its instructions to the distributor about responsible retailing. Nonetheless, the company understood that retail placement was not an element that would be considered by the Panel in determining compliance with the Code.
The company did not believe that a Tetra Pak carton with a screw cap had an inherent child-like appeal as Tetra Pak products aimed at children typically utilised a smaller 200ml size carton which usually had straws rather than a screw cap function. The packaging used for Beatbox however, was a larger 330ml size and had a resealable lid which facilitated consumers to drink responsibly as the carton could then be resealed. The drink’s packaging resembled other adult-targeted alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages that were available on the market in Tetra Pak form. While some of the soft drinks available had both adult and child variants, the child-targeted packaging was differentiated by its smaller size and inclusion of a straw. Furthermore, the company explained that the Tetra Pak format was becoming increasingly popular with adult consumers. The company submitted research which reflected that the respondents preferred Tetra Paks because of their use of plant-based materials, the ease of disposal, and the low CO2 emissions. The company highlighted global market data and stated that 506 alcoholic beverages used Tetra Paks in the UK and Europe. The company shared a number of alcoholic beverages in Tetra Pak cartons in use globally to support this point. The company explained that Tetra Paks were used for both alcohol beverages and soft drinks and this was the same as cans or bottles, which were not held to a more rigorous standard. The company stated that the prevalence of Tetra Paks in the wine-based and RTD categories meant that they could not be considered as a ‘novel’ form of packaging.
The company accepted that the design included a bold colour scheme but did not believe that this element would have an inherent appeal to under-18s. The company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal. In previous case precedent, bright and contrasting colours had been found to be acceptable provided they were not combined with other child-like cues. The company stated that bold black lines were used sparingly on the packaging and the design adopted a complex, urban and detailed graphic style which drew on aesthetics associated with music, nightlife and festival culture. In the case of Orange Blast, the colour palette incorporated various shades of orange with illustrated blue panels intended to appeal to adults. The company highlighted several precedent cases where contrasting colours were found to be acceptable by the Panel. In this case, the background was a muted orange colour with the panels of artwork using a light blue background. Most of the objects within the panels were shades of orange that complemented the muted orange used on the rest of the label and the packaging did not include cartoons, animations or other child-like graphics that would create youth appeal.
The visual style was derived from Pop Art and consciously referenced pop-art influences. The company explained that Pop Art was a mature and historically established art movement originating in the UK and US in the 1950s-1970s and would therefore have an adult appeal as it was not indicative of trends in current youth marketing. Pop art included simple, stylised images with strong keylines but could also be visually busy with a number of individual images. The company referenced case precedent where the Panel had found that 1970s and 1980s musical themes did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the same rationale must be applied to BeatBox which celebrated a style of music created in the 1980s. The name was graphically meant to resemble a “boom box” portable stereo and the images included in the side panels were meant to appeal to legal drinking age adults who had experienced that era. The company explained that the keylines, simplicity and scrapbook type of grouping were part of Pop Art which was an adult-oriented art movement.
The company explained that stylised imagery of everyday objects was a key characteristic of Pop Art and was reflected on the packaging as oranges, flowers, leaves, accordions, maracas, drums, treble clefs, sixteenth notes, snakes, a guitar, a microphone, and tigers which had broad appeal across all ages. The company had also sought advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service regarding the designs as part of its due diligence. While the Advisory Service had highlighted concern regarding the large spaces between the illustrations, the company explained that the visual spaces between the images did not give the impression that the drawings were simple or cartoon-like. Furthermore, there was no inclusion of elements which would be associated with children’s culture, such as cartoon characters, simplified graphics, mascots or playful anthropomorphic imagery on the label.
The company stated that the reliance on keylines as a basis for finding the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(h) would be contrary to previous Panel precedents and placed the company at a competitive disadvantage. The company referenced several precedents which demonstrated that products which employed thick keylines around text did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the precedent examples demonstrated that the Panel had applied an unfair standard to the BeatBox packaging particularly in regard to the use of bold keylines and shading. The company disagreed that all the fonts used on the packaging were ‘chunky’ and noted that there were different types used on the label. The name ‘BeatBox’ employed a straight-line font and whilst the font used on the flavour ‘Orange Blast’ could fairly be described as chunky the company said it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that similar fonts had been used on products which were found to be acceptable and so the adverse decision against BeatBox was arbitrary and without evidentiary support.
The company explained that the name ‘Beatbox’ was firmly rooted in adult culture and was a recognised form of vocal percussion that emerged in the 1980s and was closely associated with music, nightlife and as a performance piece. ‘Beatboxing’ was not a new phenomenon and was used in hip hop music, as a standalone art form and through a cappella groups and EDM music. The name ‘Beatbox’ was therefore not a fun and playful word created by a younger generation but instead had a long history with those who were middle-aged. The company explained that music was important to the brand’s identity with the name and musical cues chosen to appeal to adults. While ‘Beatbox’ was an energetic word, it was not child-coded and could be distinguished from other case precedents which had overtly created a link between a product name and a child’s confectionery item. The brand name was intended to resemble a ‘boom box’ stereo from the 1980s which had been in use when ‘beatboxing’ was developed. ‘Beatboxing’ would appeal to middle-aged adults.
The company explained that BeatBox was purchased by an affiliate of a founding member of the Portman Group in February 2026 and at the time of purchase, the purchaser was unaware of the ongoing complaint. The company was concerned that previously unarticulated rules were applied to the packaging rather than those set forth in the Code and through previous Panel precedent. The company stated that would be fundamentally unfair allowing its competitors to use designs, graphics and colours which it could not. The company stated that those governed by the Code had a legitimate expectation to treat the Code as a complete and accurate statement of the requirements, whereas the Panel had introduced an ‘I know it when I see it standard’.
The company explained that it had requested the complaint be resolved informally with mutually agreed designs and that this request had been repeated by the purchaser when the complaint was brought to its attention. However, the company stated that the Portman Group had repeatedly refused the requests which put it in a difficult position to fulfil its obligations to supply products to wholesalers. Furthermore, the company stated that it understood the Panel Chair could deem a case suitable to proceed through the Informal Resolution Process at any time and noted that if that was possible, the company would be ready to engage with the Portman Group.
The company was concerned that it was the Panel itself rather than the complainant that had raised concerns under Code rule 3.1 This was procedurally unfair. The company stated that the packaging was unambiguously an alcohol product and referenced previous case precedent which demonstrated that novel packaging did not have an inherent appeal to under-18s in isolation. Similarly, where a drink was clearly alcoholic it did not need to present the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) in words. In this case, the packaging of BeatBox included positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, presented as ‘6.1% Vol’ on the top of three sides of the label, with ‘contains alcohol’ on the front label as well. There was a ‘drink responsibly’ message, a pregnancy warning logo and a don’t drink and drive logo alongside a QR code which connected to responsibledrinking.eu and contained a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The packaging exceeded the standards set by UK labelling law and included the ABV on the top of two panels, in a font size the same as the flavour name, with white numbers with black keylines to draw attention to it. The company highlighted case precedents where the Panel had made suggestions to producers where it believed the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be enhanced but had found no breach of the Code. The company requested that the Panel exercise that option in this case if it believed that the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be improved.
The Panel’s assessment
3.1
The Panel raised Code rule 3.1 to consider whether the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the drink’s packaging with absolute clarity.
The Panel assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 330ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that at present in the UK, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and the packaging format was more typically associated with soft drinks aimed at adults and children. The Panel noted the company’s contention that there were 506 flavoured alcohol and wine brands across the UK and continental Europe in 2025 using that packaging format. The Panel noted that the company’s evidence included a document entitled ‘Wines in Tetra Pak in USA’ and included two further pages of ‘RTD alcohol in Tetra Pak in USA’. However, out of the examples shared by the company, the Panel noted that only three of the Tetra Pak products were labelled for sale in the UK market with one screenshot highlighting that one of the products was the first UK RTD sold in Tetra packaging in 2025, further suggesting that they were a new and novel type of packaging in the UK market. While the wider context of the global market was noted, the Panel’s decisions and remit applied to the UK market, and its consideration was based on how an average UK consumer would perceive a product. The Panel acknowledged that the use of Tetra Paks for alcoholic drinks was likely to expand from the current small number in the UK market but at the time of consideration, and in the context of the company’s own market evidence, alcohol beverages in Tetra Paks were still relatively new and represented a small subsection of the UK market. The Panel noted that the purpose of the Code was not to stifle such packaging innovation as long the design of such products complied with the rules.
The Panel discussed the recent precedent regarding VK Squashka, an alcoholic RTD in a 500ml Tetra Pak format, published in May 2026 and shared with the company as part of proceedings. As part of that decision, the Panel had also noted that the Tetra Park format was a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel noted that the VK Squashka precedent reflected the Panel’s application of Code rule 3.1 where it had considered the overall impression conveyed by the product in the context that a Tetra Pak was not a packaging format that UK consumers would readily associated with alcohol and in cases where such product packaging incorporated a number of negative alcohol cues, the packaging needed to ensure that it communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel also discussed precedents raised by the company, including Beavertown Bloody ‘Ell and Loose Juice, where the company had questioned the Panel’s decisions not to find the products in breach of the Code despite recommending improvements to improve the absolute clarity of the products’ alcoholic nature. The Panel stated that every case would be considered on its own merits and a notable difference in this case was the Tetra Pak format which had a significant crossover with soft drinks that UK consumers would not necessarily associate with alcohol, whereas 330ml cans were a common form of packaging in the UK alcohol market. The Panel stated that this did not mean that one format of packaging was preferable over the other, instead, it meant that producers needed to be mindful of how UK consumers would perceive such packaging and consider how this could impact compliance under the Code, particularly rules 3.1 and 3.2(h).
Taking into account the available evidence, the Panel reiterated that the Tetra Pak format was a novel style of packaging which the average UK consumer would not readily link with alcohol. 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 to minimise potential consumer confusion. It was therefore important that recognisable positive alcohol cues were on the label and presented in a clear and unambiguous way. The Panel noted that the guidance stated that the Panel would consider the number of ‘positive’ cues against the number of ‘negative’ cues when determining whether a product’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The guidance listed a number of ‘negative’ cues as a warning to producers which included ‘dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery on packaging, novel packaging, overly busy design, cartoon-like illustrations and primary colours’. Guidance stated that no one element would make a drink’s packaging compliant with rule 3.1 and if the cumulative impact of negative cues outweighed the positive ones (such as the ABV, shape of container etc.), the Panel could find the product in breach of the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label and noted that the drink’s name ‘Beatbox’ and flavour descriptor ‘Orange Blast’ were the most prominent words on the label. The Panel considered that ‘Beatbox’ would generally be understood as a reference to a form of vocal percussion that involved using the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to mimic drum machines and other musical instruments. The Panel accepted that this was the primary meaning of the word which had been acknowledged in the company’s response to the complaint, where it explained that the name was inspired by the vocal style of music. The Panel considered that on that basis, ‘Beatbox’ was not intended to be a phrase or word that consumers would typically associate with an alcoholic drink. The Panel considered the next most prominent words on the front of the packaging which were ‘Orange Blast’. The Panel considered that orange was a flavour used for alcoholic drinks, but it was also a popular flavour for soft drinks, including squashes, juices and smoothies. The Panel considered that this potentially led to ambiguity regarding the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel expressed concern that in the context of a novel container, the musically themed name and focus on fruit flavour detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that there were some positive cues, including the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) presented as ‘6.1% vol’ on two sides of the packaging. While the Panel noted that the front label included the text ‘contains alcohol’ at the bottom, this was presented in a relatively small black font and was difficult to read due to the size and the contrast of the bright orange background. Alongside this, the label contained abstract and brightly coloured artwork which wrapped around the sides of the container to create a busy visual pattern and distracted from the communication of the alcohol-related information. The Panel noted there were some positive alcohol cues on the reverse label which included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo, a don’t drink and drive warning logo and unit content information, however these were presented in small difficult to read black text at the bottom. The Panel noted that above this information there was white text outlined in a thick black keyline which stated that the drink was ‘best serve chilled’ and the simple descriptor ‘drink’. The Panel considered that a consumer’s eye would naturally be drawn to this information which was far more prominent and easier to read and did not indicate the product’s alcoholic nature compared to the small text at the very bottom of the panel which was difficult to read.
The Panel noted the QR code where consumers could connect to responsibledrinking.eu which contained advice on drinking and moderation, as well as a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The Panel did not believe that a QR code should be used as an indication to consumers that a product contained alcohol. QR codes were present on a range of products, not just alcoholic drinks, and it should not be incumbent on a consumer to scan a product to seek out positive alcohol cues if the primary packaging contained a significant number of cues which detracted from a product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel carefully considered the above elements to determine the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. While there were some positive alcohol cues on the label, most of them were difficult to read and were markedly less visible than the other text which emphasised the word ‘drink’, fruit flavour and link to music. This impression was compounded by the use of bright colours and busy, visually distracting imagery which further detracted from the clear communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature. In the context of 3.1 guidance, the Panel noted that the product incorporated multiple negative cues that had been listed as a warning to producers to be mindful of when ensuring that a product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the company’s point that guidance was not clear enough when detailing what ‘work harder’ entailed under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered that current guidance was clear on what the Panel would consider in terms of positive and negative cues and how these elements could impact the overall impression conveyed. The Panel noted that case precedents also reflected how the rule may be applied, particularly in cases such as VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Blossom Hill Spritz, all of which highlighted how negative cues could detract from clarity regarding a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the company’s purchaser, a member of the Portman Group, had approved and contributed to Portman Group guidance over a number of years. The Panel noted that the rules of the Code were broadly written, with supporting guidance, to provide a degree of flexibility so that standards were not overly prescriptive and reflected the spirit of what the Code was seeking to achieve; a balance between creative and innovative marketing, whilst protecting consumers from harm. The rules could not be written to provide absolute certainty and dictate a bright line of compliance but Portman Group guidance, Panel precedent and the Advisory Service were designed to assist producers in understanding how the Code could be applied. The Panel encouraged the company to liaise with the Portman Group if it believed that improvements could be made to current guidance to assist the industry further.
The Panel noted the company’s assurance that the product met the minimum legal standards in the UK. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to ensure that positive alcohol cues, such as the product’s ABV and alcohol descriptor, were clearly visible, easy to read and not undermined by negative cues such as novel packaging, an overly busy design, a dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery, cartoon like-illustrations and primary colours, all of which were present in this case. Therefore, on balance, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the name, fruit flavour, colourful, busy label and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink. Alongside this, a significant amount of the alcohol information that had been included was in small difficult to read black font on an orange background that was less prominent than the fruit flavour and busy visual artwork, in the context of novel packaging that was currently more commonly associated with soft drinks. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to communicate a product’s alcoholic nature to minimise consumer confusion. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and found the product in breach Code rule 3.1.
In respect of the company’s contention that it was procedurally unfair for the Panel to raise Code rule 3.1, the Panel noted Code paragraph 5.24:
The Panel meets to consider the product’s packaging or promotion after having an opportunity to study the dossier. The Panel is not bound to restrict its consideration of the product’s packaging or promotion to the narrow terms of the complaint but may consider the packaging or promotion under any section of the Code that it considers relevant, regardless of whether this section relates to the specific complaint or has been highlighted in the dossier by the Code Secretariat or otherwise.
This had been communicated to the company in writing at the beginning of the complaint process. The Panel noted that roughly 52 case precedents had been referenced during the case, many by the company, and around 40% of the cases cited included the Panel raising additional Code rules of its own accord. Regardless of this, the Panel considered that the company had been given ample opportunity to respond to the concerns raised under rule 3.1 prior to the Panel making its final decision and it had done so. The Panel explained that such a mechanism provided producers with more regulatory certainty as the entirety of the Code was considered rather than relying on multiple complaints and hearings to address any potential issues. In addition to this, the Panel explained that, as an independent body, it was important for it to address packaging and or/ marketing that, in its view, did not meet the standards set by the Code if such matters had been brought to its attention via the formal investigation route to ensure that high standards of responsible naming, packaging and promotion were applied consistently.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted its decision under Code rule 3.1 and reiterated that at the time of consideration in 2026, Tetra Paks were not well-known containers for an alcoholic drink and were more commonly associated with both adult and children’s soft drinks in the UK market. The Panel discussed the company’s response that ‘Beatbox’ had a screw cap mechanism which differentiated it from soft drinks in Tetra Pak packaging targeted at children as these drinks required the use of a straw to access the liquid. The Panel acknowledged that both adult and children’s soft drinks were common on the UK market in a Tetra Pak format and were therefore not exclusively used for children’s drinks meaning that a Tetra Pak did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s. However, while many soft drinks for children in Tetra Pak containers included a straw, there were also child-targeted products which had a screw cap style lid similar to Beatbox. The Panel therefore reminded alcoholic drink producers that when using a novel container in alcohol marketing, particularly a packaging style that was also used for children’s drinks, caution should be exercised. In such circumstances, the Panel explained that alcohol marketing needed to ensure that the presentation of the packaging had an adult appeal and did not particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel considered the company’s contention that the Panel had inconsistently applied Code rule 3.2(h) across a multitude of design aspects which included the use of keylines, font style, fruit flavour, contrasting colours and artwork. The Panel noted that the company’s response discussed each of these individual elements as separate points to convey the assertion that each aspect did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that guidance to the rule made it clear that both the Panel and the Advisory Service would assess the overall impression conveyed by packaging and specifically ‘this can mean that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, may change when combined with other elements and create an overall impression which is non-compliant’ Guidance Note – 3.2(h) – Particular appeal to under-18s, November 2023 .The Panel noted that while it would provide analysis regarding its reasoning relating to each design feature, its conclusion was based on the overall impression conveyed when all of the elements were considered on a cumulative basis.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the brand name ‘Beatbox’ referenced a vocal musical style which was popularised in the 1980s. The Panel agreed that ‘Beatbox’ as a name or reference to musical style would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as it was an established form of music that appealed to a range of ages. Furthermore, the Panel considered that some under-18s would be unaware of its meaning or the music style. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label which was brightly coloured with ‘Beatbox’ displayed in large white text with a thick black keyline vertically on the front label. The Panel discussed that while ‘Beatbox’ as a reference to a musical style would not create a particular appeal to under-18s, the typography which employed three thick contrasting keylines meant it stood out and would be particularly eye-catching for those under-18 as a style. The Panel discussed that inclusion of thick keylines around a chunky font was a feature often used in marketing aimed at under-18s because children found bold keylines attractive as they developed visual perception skills as noted in guidance. In those instances, the attraction for children was not necessarily dictated by the meaning of the word, but instead how it was presented with thick bold outlined text being highly appealing.
The company highlighted that the Panel had permitted other RTDs in previous cases* to use keylines. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that the overwhelming majority of cases analysed were prior to 2022, with one exception cited from 2025. The Panel noted that accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) had been subject to an extensive revision in November 2023 when the Panel and the Portman Group had jointly commissioned Kids Industries, a marketing agency with specific expertise on marketing products aimed at children, to provide insights on marketing techniques that are used to appeal to children and teenagers outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel discussed 3.2(h) guidance (Section 4, Page 4) which provided detailed guidance on areas producers should be mindful of under the rule. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that consideration of keylines had featured in Panel decisions from around 2015 onwards. However, guidance from the Portman Group on how Code rule 3.2(h) could be interpreted was extensively developed in 2023 and had led to the current version of guidance which was its most detailed version to date and was the first version to include advice about the use of keylines. The Panel acknowledged that regulatory consistency was important, but the Panel also considered that self-regulatory standards, including guidance behind a rule, could not stay static, and it was important for accompanying guidance to reflect a changing environment, in marketing, in product development, and in society generally. The guidance update had led to enhanced clarification for the Panel in its application of Code rule 3.2(h) and the Panel noted that there were numerous precedents after 2023 which reflected a consistent application of Code rule 3.2(h) that had been shared with the company as part of the case but had not been referenced as part of its response. In particular, the Panel discussed recent precedents including VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Cactus Jacks, all of which included reference to how thick keylines could impact the overall impression conveyed under Code rule 3.2(h). However, the Panel emphasised that while precedents could provide a guide for other producers, every case would be considered on its own merits and ultimately, the overall impression conveyed by a product could lead to instances where a straight read across was not always possible. In cases where interpretation may not be clear-cut, the Panel encouraged producers to use the Portman Group’s Advisory Service. While such advice was not binding on the Panel, and could not provide guaranteed assurance, it was a service that could help producers mitigate risk under the Code.
The Panel noted that the company had sought free, confidential advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service, prior to the purchaser’s acquisition, and the advice had been shared with the Panel under Code paragraph 5.25. In the case of Orange Blast, advice stated:
“We’re afraid we are concerned that the other three designs: Fruit Punch, Juicy Mango and Orange Blast, feature bright colours with high contrast. We know that bright contrasting colours can be particularly appealing to under 18s and so we recommend making the colours softer and less contrasting to minimise the risk under Code rule 3.2(h)”.
The Panel noted that the Advisory Service also raised a concern about the flavour name:
“We also think the name Orange Crush is a concern as we think it is similar to the names of soft drinks that are marketed towards children, for example slushy ice drinks. We suggest the name is altered to minimise the risk under Code rule 3.2(h)”.
The Panel noted that the company had been advised to make changes to the product due to the risk the design posed under the Code. While the company was not bound by the advice, and had chosen not to implement the suggested changes, the Panel considered the advice demonstrated that the company was aware of the potential risk of the design.
The Panel then discussed the flavour name ‘Orange Blast’ and noted that while it would have broad appeal to all ages in isolation, children were predisposed to find sweet and fruit flavours more attractive. Furthermore, the Panel stated that ‘orange’ was a flavour that was commonly used in soft drinks aimed at children and would be recognisable by under-18s as an attractive quality of the drink. The Panel considered that this appeal was compounded by the presentation of ‘Orange Blast’ which was depicted in a bubble-writing style of font with the word ‘blast’ creating a fun, onomatopoetic and playful communication of the drink’s flavour. On balance, the Panel therefore considered that the presentation of the drink’s name and the sweet fruit flavour would enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s in the context of a Tetra Pak container which was also a format used for children’s soft drinks. The company highlighted that the Panel had previously permitted other RTDs and alcohol beverages to reference fruit flavours, even when the packaging was similar to that of soft drinks, such as 330ml cans. The Panel reiterated that a Tetra Pak was a novel form of packaging for alcoholic drinks in the UK market in 2026. The precedents that the company had cited were primarily products that were either in 330ml cans or bottles that were more established in the UK market as alcohol packaging formats. The Panel stated that when new forms of novel packaging entered the UK market, each needed to be assessed on its own merits, drawing from precedent, the overall impression conveyed and the available evidence at the time. The Panel noted that in the context of novel packaging sharing a packaging format with children’s and adult soft drinks, a sweet fruit flavour in that specific context would be a contributary factor enhancing the appeal a product would have to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the artwork used on the packaging and acknowledged the company’s statement that it had been inspired by the ‘Pop Art’ movement of the 1950s-1970s. The Panel noted that the imagery included shapes such as flowers, guitars, drums, accordions, maracas, musical notes, leaves, feathers and snakes. Alongside these visuals were more abstract representations including flattened and dripping oranges, oranges in clouds, a winged tiger, a microphone blasting off with an orange top and lips with a tongue protruding licking an orange. While the presentation of some of the items was abstract, the overall design was visually busy with the artwork presented in a basic cartoon-like style with simple illustrations and black keylines featuring on all of them. The Panel considered that this meant the images were less stylised than classic ‘Pop Art’ artworks and presented less maturely and meant that an intended reference to ‘pop art’ was not necessarily obvious without the company’s explanation. The Panel considered that the guitars, microphone, musical notes, maracas, drums and accordions created a strong connection with creating music and acknowledged that musical references would not necessarily resonate with under-18s more than adults, though it was a theme that would nonetheless have a level of appeal to them by incorporating instruments and visual imagery that children would be familiar
with from school. The Panel assessed the images which did not include any intricate detail and were presented as simple, and sometimes fantastical, designs which increased their resemblance to art styles used in children’s media which often had simple designs with uncomplicated cartoon imagery and minimal details. The Panel noted that the images were additionally presented in a haphazard, busy, style very reminiscent of a child’s or teenager’s doodling, which, in the Panel’s view, would further resonate with under 18s as was consistent with similar precedent from Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings. The Panel considered that alongside this, the imagery included the use of bright primary and secondary colours which created a high level of contrast against the orange and blue packaging. The Panel was of the view that these were all elements that would resonate with children who would find bright contrasting colours and high luminance levels stimulating and eye-catching as reflected in guidance.
Taking the above elements in combination, the Panel concluded that the typography of the brand name ‘Beatbox’ and bubble-writing of the ‘Orange Blast’ flavour both with thick black keylines, onomatopoeic wording, novel style packaging that was not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, sweet fruit flavour, bright, contrasting colours and simple cartoon images created a cumulative impact that meant the overall impression conveyed had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel reiterated that no single element in isolation had necessarily caused a breach and that it was the cumulative impact of all of the features that had led to a breach of the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel welcomed the company’s intent to redesign the product to ensure that the design not only reflected the purchaser’s internal marketing standards but also the minimum standards required by the Code.
Finally, the Panel noted the company’s complaint that Portman Group’s Secretariat had declined to move the case to an informal resolution route and therefore prevented the case from being resolved in a swift and mutually agreeable manner. The Chair highlighted clause 5.13 onwards in the Code of Practice which made it clear that the decision as to whether a case should proceed informally or formally was made by the Chair. In this particular case, the case was not considered suitable for informal resolution as it had been deemed potentially precedent setting and not a clear-cut breach of the Code. The complexity and length of the final decision reflected why the case had required consideration by the full Panel and was not suitable for informal resolution.
Action by Company:
Packaging amended after working with the Advisory Service
* Burst Blue Raspberry (2025), Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon (2022), Dragon Soop Strawberry & Lime (2019), Dragon Soop range (2022), Hoola Hooch (2018), Beavertown’s Bloody Ell (2015), Gamma Ray (2015), Neck Oil (2019), multiple Tiny Rebel cases from 2021, Show Off (2019), Buoyancy Aid (2020), Frosty Jack’s Cider (2020), Flagingo Electric Blue Gin Liqueur (2022), Flamingo Tears (2019), Pixie Tears (2019), Desperados (2018), Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake (2011), Stiffy’s Kola Kubez (2011), Funky Monkey Vodka Shots (2006)
Producer:
BeatBox Netherlands B.V.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
I recently saw this product in Morrisons, positioned next to the soft drinks and energy drinks, specifically not in an aisle where they were otherwise selling alcohol. The product has bright, fun imagery which is likely to appeal to under-18s, and is in a ‘juice box’ format. The Fruit Punch flavour variety in particular has tiki masks with the tongues sticking out which is again very likely to appeal to children. The products are 6.1% vol, with 2 units per 330ml carton. I believe this is highly irresponsible marketing of the product, and highly irresponsible of Morrisons to stock this product, especially in the location where they have chosen to stock it in my local store, at the end of the general soft drinks aisle.”
Decision:
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
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 stated that while it was grateful for the opportunity to respond to the complaint, it did not believe that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company understood that for alcohol marketing to hold a particular appeal to under-18s, the packaging would need to resonate with them more than it would with adults. That company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal.
The company was disappointed to learn that the drinks had been placed within a soft drink retailing space as this was not in line with its instructions to the distributor about responsible retailing. Nonetheless, the company understood that retail placement was not an element that would be considered by the Panel in determining compliance with the Code.
The company did not believe that a Tetra Pak carton with a screw cap had an inherent child-like appeal as Tetra Pak products aimed at children typically utilised a smaller 200ml size carton which usually had straws rather than a screw cap function. The packaging used for BeatBox however, was a larger 330ml size and had a resealable lid which facilitated consumers to drink responsibly as the carton could then be resealed. The drink’s packaging resembled other adult-targeted alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages that were available on the market in Tetra Pak form. While some of the soft drinks available had both adult and child variants, the child-targeted packaging was differentiated by its smaller size and inclusion of a straw. Furthermore, the company explained that the Tetra Pak format was becoming increasingly popular with adult consumers. The company submitted research which reflected that the respondents preferred Tetra Paks because of their use of plant-based materials, the ease of disposal, and the low CO2 emissions. The company highlighted global market data and stated that 506 alcoholic beverages used Tetra Paks in the UK and Europe. The company shared a number of alcoholic beverages in Tetra Pak cartons in use globally to support this point. The company explained that Tetra Paks were used for both alcohol beverages and soft drinks and this was the same as cans or bottles, which were not held to a more rigorous standard. The company stated that the prevalence of Tetra Paks in the wine-based and RTD categories meant that they could not be considered as a ‘novel’ form of packaging.
The company accepted that the design included a bold colour scheme but did not believe that this element would have an inherent appeal to under-18s. The company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal. In previous case precedent, bright and contrasting colours had been found to be acceptable provided they were not combined with other child-like cues. The company stated that bold black lines were used sparingly on the packaging and the design adopted a complex, urban and detailed graphic style which drew on aesthetics associated with music, nightlife and festival culture. The company explained the colour palette incorporated red and pink, with illustrated green panels designed to appeal to adults. In response to the provisional decision, the company highlighted several precedent cases where contrasting colours were found to be acceptable by the Panel. In this case, the company stated the lime green background did not present a stark contrast with the predominantly orange artwork panels and the use of yellow, green and lavender within those panels complemented the orange. There were a few splashes of yellow used in the illustrated objects but that feature would not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The visual style was derived from Pop Art and consciously referenced pop-art influences. The company explained that Pop Art was a mature and historically established art movement originating in the UK and US in the 1950s-1970s and would therefore have an adult appeal as it was not indicative of trends in current youth marketing. Pop art included simple, stylised images with strong keylines but could also be visually busy with a number of individual images. The company referenced case precedent where the Panel had found that 1970s and 1980s musical themes did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the same rationale must be applied to BeatBox which celebrated a style of music created in the 1980s. The name was graphically meant to resemble a “boom box” portable stereo and the images included in the side panels were meant to appeal to legal drinking age adults who had experienced that era. The company explained that the keylines, simplicity and scrapbook type of grouping were part of Pop Art which was an adult-oriented art movement.
The company explained that the images included shaka hand gestures, palm trees, cocktails, surfboards and tiki masks. These were widely recognised as symbols of relaxation, travel, cocktail culture and as adult lifestyle cues. Stylised imagery of everyday objects was a key characteristic of Pop Art and was represented on the packaging using a tiki mask amongst other items. The company had also sought advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service regarding the designs as part of its due diligence and sought to implement feedback. The company did not consider that tiki masks had a particular appeal to under-18s as they had a long cultural history in the US and would have a nostalgic appeal to adults. The large eyes and sticking out tongue were a classic depiction of the mask which represented a gesture of challenge or defiance. Furthermore, there was no inclusion of elements which would be associated with children’s culture, such as cartoon characters, simplified graphics, mascots or playful anthropomorphic imagery on the label. The company noted previous cases where packaging had been found to have a particular appeal to under-18s because it had resembled well-known children’s media. The company concluded that this parallel was not present with BeatBox’s packaging.
The company stated that the reliance on keylines as a basis for finding the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(h) would be contrary to previous Panel precedents and placed the company at a competitive disadvantage. The company referenced several precedents which demonstrated that products which employed thick keylines around text did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the precedent examples demonstrated that the Panel had applied an unfair standard to the BeatBox packaging particularly in regard to the use of bold keylines and shading. The company disagreed that all the fonts used on the packaging were ‘chunky’ and noted that there were different types used on the label The name ‘BeatBox’ employed a straight-line font and the flavour ‘Fruit Punch’ had a thin font which could not be described as ‘chunky’. The company stated that similar fonts had been used on products which were found to be acceptable and so the adverse decision against BeatBox was arbitrary and without evidentiary support.
The company explained that the name ‘BeatBox’ was firmly rooted in adult culture and was a recognised form of vocal percussion that emerged in the 1980s and was closely associated with music, nightlife and as a performance piece. ‘Beatboxing’ was not a new phenomenon and was used in hip hop music, as a standalone art form and through a cappella groups and EDM music. The name ‘Beatbox’ was therefore not a fun and playful word created by a younger generation but instead had a long history with those who were middle-aged. The company explained that music was important to the brand’s identity with the name and musical cues chosen to appeal to adults. While ‘Beatbox’ was an energetic word, it was not child-coded and could be distinguished from other case precedents which had overtly created a link between a product name and a child’s confectionery item. The brand name was intended to resemble a ‘boom box’ stereo from the 1980s which had been in use when ‘beatboxing’ was developed. ‘Beatboxing’ would appeal to middle-aged adults.
The company explained that BeatBox was purchased by an affiliate of a founding member of the Portman Group in February 2026 and at the time of purchase, the purchaser was unaware of the ongoing complaint. The company was concerned that previously unarticulated rules were applied to the packaging rather than those set forth in the Code and through previous Panel precedent. The company stated that would be fundamentally unfair allowing its competitors to use designs, graphics and colours which it could not. The company stated that those governed by the Code had a legitimate expectation to treat the Code as a complete and accurate statement of the requirements, whereas, the Panel’s had introduced an ‘I know it when I see it standard’.
The company explained that it had requested the complaint be resolved informally with mutually agreed designs and that this request had been repeated by the purchaser when the complaint was brought to its attention. However, the company stated that the Portman Group had repeatedly refused the requests which put it in a difficult position to fulfil its obligations to supply products to wholesalers. Furthermore, the company stated that it understood the Panel Chair could deem a case suitable to proceed through the Informal Resolution Process at any time and noted that if that was possible, the company would be ready to engage with the Portman Group.
The company was concerned that it was the Panel itself rather than the complainant that had raised concerns under Code rule 3.1 until the provisional decision was received. This was procedurally unfair. The company stated that the packaging was unambiguously an alcohol product and referenced previous case precedent which demonstrated that novel packaging did not have an inherent appeal to under-18s in isolation. Similarly, where a drink was clearly alcoholic it did not need to present the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) in words. In this case, the packaging of BeatBox included positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, presented as ‘6.1% Vol’ on the top of three sides of the label, with ‘contains alcohol’ on the front label as well. There was a ‘drink responsibly’ message, a pregnancy warning logo and a don’t drink and drive logo alongside a QR code which connected to responsibledrinking.eu and contained a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The packaging exceeded the standards set by UK labelling law and included the ABV on the top of two panels, in a font size the same as the flavour name, with white numbers with black keylines to draw attention to it. The company highlighted case precedents where the Panel had made suggestions to producers where it believed the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be enhanced but had found no breach of the Code. The company requested that the Panel exercise that option in this case if it believed that the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be improved.
The Panel’s assessment
3.1
The Panel raised Code rule 3.1 to consider whether the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the drink’s packaging with absolute clarity.
The Panel assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 330ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that at present in the UK, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and the packaging format was more typically associated with soft drinks aimed at adults and children. The Panel noted the company’s contention that there were 506 flavoured alcohol and wine brands across the UK and continental Europe in 2025 using that packaging format. The Panel noted that the company’s evidence included a document entitled ‘Wines in Tetra Pak in USA’ and included two further pages of ‘RTD alcohol in Tetra Pak in USA’. However, out of the examples shared by the company, the Panel noted that only three of the Tetra Pak products were labelled for sale in the UK market with one screenshot highlighting that one of the products was the first UK RTD sold in Tetra packaging in 2025, further suggesting that they were a new and novel type of packaging in the UK market. While the wider context of the global market was noted, the Panel’s decisions and remit applied to the UK market, and its consideration was based on how an average UK consumer would perceive a product. The Panel acknowledged that the use of Tetra Paks for alcoholic drinks was likely to expand from the current small number in the UK market but at the time of consideration, and in the context of the company’s own market evidence, alcohol beverages in Tetra Paks were still relatively new and represented a small subsection of the UK market. The Panel noted that the purpose of the Code was not to stifle such packaging innovation as long the design of such products complied with the rules.
The Panel discussed the recent precedent regarding VK Squashka, an alcoholic RTD in a 500ml Tetra Pak format, published in May 2026 and shared with the company as part of proceedings. As part of that decision, the Panel had also noted that the Tetra Park format was a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel noted that the VK Squashka precedent reflected the Panel’s application of Code rule 3.1 where it had considered the overall impression conveyed by the product in the context that a Tetra Pak was not a packaging format that UK consumers would readily associate with alcohol and in cases where such product packaging incorporated a number of negative alcohol cues, the packaging needed to ensure that it communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel also discussed precedents raised by the company, including Beavertown Bloody ‘Elland Loose Juice, where the company had questioned the Panel’s decisions not to find the products in breach of the Code despite recommending improvements to improve the absolute clarity of the products’ alcoholic nature. The Panel stated that every case would be considered on its own merits and a notable difference in this case was the Tetra Pak format which had a significant crossover with soft drinks that UK consumers would not necessarily associate with alcohol, whereas 330ml cans were a common form of packaging in the UK alcohol market. The Panel stated that this did not mean that one format of packaging was preferable over the other, instead, it meant that producers needed to be mindful of how UK consumers would perceive such packaging and consider how this could impact compliance under the Code, particularly rules 3.1 and 3.2(h).
Taking into account the available evidence, the Panel reiterated that the Tetra Pak format was a novel style of packaging which the average UK consumer would not readily link with alcohol. 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 to minimise potential consumer confusion. It was therefore important that recognisable positive alcohol cues were on the label and presented in a clear and unambiguous way. The Panel noted that the guidance stated that the Panel would consider the number of ‘positive’ cues against the number of ‘negative’ cues when determining whether a product’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The guidance listed a number of ‘negative’ cues as a warning to producers which included ‘dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery on packaging, novel packaging, overly busy design, cartoon-like illustrations and primary colours’. Guidance stated that no one element would make a drink’s packaging compliant with rule 3.1 and if the cumulative impact of negative cues outweighed the positive ones (such as the ABV, shape of container etc.), the Panel could find the product in breach of the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label and noted that the drink’s name ‘BeatBox’ and flavour descriptor ‘Fruit Punch’ were the most prominent words on the label. The Panel considered that ‘Beatbox’ would generally be understood as a reference to a form of vocal percussion that involved using the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to mimic drum machines and other musical instruments. The Panel accepted that this was the primary meaning of the word which had been acknowledged in the company’s response to the complaint, where it explained that the name was inspired by the vocal style of music. The Panel considered that on that basis, ‘Beatbox’ was not intended to be a phrase or word that consumers would typically associate with an alcoholic drink. The Panel considered the next most prominent words on the front of the packaging which were ‘Fruit Punch’. The Panel discussed that ‘Punch’ was usually a mixed drink with a sweet flavour that may or may not contain alcohol. The Panel therefore considered that ‘Punch’ was an ambiguous drink descriptor and could not be relied upon to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature and in this case was preceded by the word ‘Fruit’ which would be more readily recognised as a soft drink flavour. The Panel expressed concern that in the context of a novel container, the musically themed name and focus on fruit flavour detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that there were some positive cues, including the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) presented as ‘6.1% vol’ on two sides of the packaging. While the Panel noted that the front label included the text ‘contains alcohol’ at the bottom, this was presented in a relatively small white font and was difficult to read due to the size and the contrast of the bright pink background. Alongside this, the label contained abstract and brightly coloured artwork which wrapped around the sides of the container to create a busy visual pattern and distracted from the communication of the alcohol-related information. The Panel noted there were some positive alcohol cues on the reverse label which included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo, a don’t drink and drive warning logo and unit content information, however these were presented in small difficult to read white text at the bottom. The Panel noted that above this information there was white text outlined in a thick black keyline which stated that the drink was ‘best serve chilled’ and the simple descriptor ‘drink’. The Panel considered that a consumer’s eye would naturally be drawn to this information which was far more prominent and easier to read and did not indicate the product’s alcoholic nature compared to the small text at the very bottom of the panel which was difficult to read.
The Panel noted the QR code where consumers could connect to responsibledrinking.eu which contained advice on drinking and moderation, as well as a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The Panel did not believe that a QR code should be used as an indication to consumers that a product contained alcohol. QR codes were present on a range of products, not just alcoholic drinks, and it should not be incumbent on a consumer to scan a product to seek out positive alcohol cues if the primary packaging contained a significant number of cues which detracted from a product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel carefully considered the above elements to determine the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. While there were some positive alcohol cues on the label, most of them were difficult to read and were markedly less visible than the other text which emphasised the word ‘drink’, fruit flavour and link to music. This impression was compounded by the use of bright colours and busy, visually distracting imagery which further detracted from the clear communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature. In the context of 3.1 guidance, the Panel noted that the product incorporated multiple negative cues that had been listed as a warning to producers to be mindful of when ensuring that a product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the company’s point that guidance was not clear enough when detailing what ‘work harder’ entailed under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered that current guidance was clear on what the Panel would consider in terms of positive and negative cues and how these elements could impact the overall impression conveyed. The Panel noted that case precedents also reflected how the rule may be applied, particularly in cases such as VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Blossom Hill Spritz, all of which highlighted how negative cues could detract from clarity regarding a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the company’s purchaser, a member of the Portman Group, had approved and contributed to Portman Group guidance over a number of years. The Panel noted that the rules of the Code were broadly written, with supporting guidance, to provide a degree of flexibility so that standards were not overly prescriptive and reflected the spirit of what the Code was seeking to achieve; a balance between creative and innovative marketing, whilst protecting consumers from harm. The rules could not be written to provide absolute certainty and dictate a bright line of compliance but Portman Group guidance, Panel precedent and the Advisory Service were designed to assist producers in understanding how the Code could be applied. The Panel encouraged the company to liaise with the Portman Group if it believed that improvements could be made to current guidance to assist the industry further.
The Panel noted the company’s assurance that the product met the minimum legal standards in the UK. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to ensure that positive alcohol cues, such as the product’s ABV and alcohol descriptor, were clearly visible, easy to read and not undermined by negative cues such as novel packaging, an overly busy design, a dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery, cartoon like-illustrations and primary colours, all of which were present in this case. Therefore, on balance, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the name, fruit flavour, colourful, busy label and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink. Alongside this, a significant amount of the alcohol information that had been included was in small difficult to read white font on a pink background that was less prominent than the fruit flavour and busy visual artwork, in the context of novel packaging that was currently more commonly associated with soft drinks. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to communicate a product’s alcoholic nature to minimise consumer confusion. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and found the product in breach Code rule 3.1.
In respect of the company’s contention that it was procedurally unfair for the Panel to raise Code rule 3.1, the Panel noted Code paragraph 5.24:
The Panel meets to consider the product’s packaging or promotion after having an opportunity to study the dossier. The Panel is not bound to restrict its consideration of the product’s packaging or promotion to the narrow terms of the complaint but may consider the packaging or promotion under any section of the Code that it considers relevant, regardless of whether this section relates to the specific complaint or has been highlighted in the dossier by the Code Secretariat or otherwise.
This had been communicated to the company in writing at the beginning of the complaint process. The Panel noted that roughly 52 case precedents had been referenced during the case, many by the company, and around 40% of the cases cited included the Panel raising additional Code rules of its own accord. Regardless of this, the Panel considered that the company had been given ample opportunity to respond to the concerns raised under rule 3.1 prior to the Panel making its final decision and it had done so. The Panel explained that such a mechanism provided producers with more regulatory certainty as the entirety of the Code was considered rather than relying on multiple complaints and hearings to address any potential issues. In addition to this, the Panel explained that, as an independent body, it was important for it to address packaging and or/ marketing that, in its view, did not meet the standards set by the Code if such matters had been brought to its attention via the formal investigation route to ensure that high standards of responsible naming, packaging and promotion were applied.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted its decision under Code rule 3.1 and reiterated that at the time of consideration in 2026, Tetra Paks were not well-known containers for an alcoholic drink and were more commonly associated with both adult and children’s soft drinks in the UK market. The Panel discussed the company’s response that ‘BeatBox’ had a screw cap mechanism which differentiated it from soft drinks in Tetra Pak packaging targeted at children as these drinks required the use of a straw to access the liquid. The Panel acknowledged that both adult and children’s soft drinks were common on the UK market in a Tetra Pak format and were therefore not exclusively used for children’s drinks meaning that a Tetra Pak did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s. However, while many soft drinks for children in Tetra Pak containers included a straw, there were also child-targeted products which had a screw cap style lid similar to BeatBox. The Panel therefore reminded alcoholic drink producers that when using a novel container in alcohol marketing, particularly a packaging style that was also used for children’s drinks, caution should be exercised. In such circumstances, the Panel explained that alcohol marketing needed to ensure that the presentation of the packaging had an adult appeal and did not particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel considered the company’s contention that the Panel had inconsistently applied Code rule 3.2(h) across a multitude of design aspects which included the use of keylines, font style, fruit flavour, contrasting colours and artwork. The Panel noted that the company’s response discussed each of these individual elements as separate points to convey the assertion that each aspect did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that guidance to the rule made it clear that both the Panel and the Advisory Service would assess the overall impression conveyed by packaging and specifically ‘this can mean that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, may change when combined with other elements and create an overall impression which is non-compliant’(Guidance Note – 3.2(h) – Particular appeal to under-18s, November 2023. The Panel noted that while it would provide analysis regarding its reasoning relating to each design feature, its conclusion was based on the overall impression conveyed when all of the elements were considered on a cumulative basis.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the brand name ‘BeatBox’ referenced a vocal musical style which was popularised in the 1980s. The Panel agreed that ‘Beatbox’ as a name or reference to musical style would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as it was an established form of music that appealed to a range of ages. Furthermore, the Panel considered that some under-18s would be unaware of its meaning or the music style. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label which was brightly coloured with ‘BeatBox’ displayed in large white text with a thick black keyline vertically on the front label. The Panel discussed that while ‘Beatbox’ as a reference to a musical style would not create a particular appeal to under-18s, the typography which employed three thick contrasting keylines meant it stood out and would be particularly eye-catching for those under-18 as a style. The Panel discussed that inclusion of thick keylines around a chunky font was a feature often used in marketing aimed at under-18s because children found bold keylines attractive as they developed visual perception skills as noted in guidance. In those instances, the attraction for children was not necessarily dictated by the meaning of the word, but instead how it was presented with thick bold outlined text being highly appealing.
The company highlighted that the Panel had permitted other RTDs in previous cases* to use keylines. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that the overwhelming majority of cases analysed were prior to 2022, with one exception cited from 2025. The Panel noted that accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) had been subject to an extensive revision in November 2023, when the Panel and the Portman Group had jointly commissioned Kids Industries, a marketing agency with specific expertise on marketing products aimed at children, to provide insights on marketing techniques that are used to appeal to children and teenagers outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel discussed 3.2(h) guidance (Section 4, page 4) which provided detailed guidance on areas producers should be mindful of under the rule. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that consideration of keylines had featured in Panel decisions from around 2015 onwards. However, guidance from the Portman Group on how Code rule 3.2(h) could be interpreted was extensively developed in 2023 and had led to the current version of guidance which was its most detailed version to date and was the first version to include advice about the use of keylines. The Panel acknowledged that regulatory consistency was important, but the Panel also considered that self-regulatory standards, including guidance behind a rule, could not stay static, and it was important for accompanying guidance to reflect a changing environment in marketing, in product development and in society generally. The guidance update had led to enhanced clarification for the Panel in its application of Code rule 3.2(h) and the Panel noted that there were numerous precedents after 2023 which reflected a consistent application of Code rule 3.2(h) that had been shared with the company as part of the case but had not been referenced as part of its response. In particular, the Panel discussed recent precedents including VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Cactus Jacks, all of which included reference to how thick keylines could impact the overall impression conveyed under Code rule 3.2(h). However, the Panel emphasised that while precedents could provide a guide for other producers, every case would be considered on its own merits and ultimately, the overall impression conveyed by a product could lead to instances where a straight read across was not always possible. In cases where interpretation may not be clear-cut, the Panel encouraged producers to use the Portman Group’s Advisory Service. While such advice was not binding on the Panel, and could not provide guaranteed assurance, it was a service that could help producers mitigate risk under the Code.
The Panel noted that the company had sought free, confidential advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service, prior to the purchaser’s acquisition, and the advice had been shared with the Panel under Code paragraph 5.25. In the case of Fruit Punch, advice stated:
“We’re afraid we are concerned that the other three designs: Fruit Punch, Juicy Mango and Orange Blast, feature bright colours with high contrast. We know that bright contrasting colours can be particularly appealing to under 18s and so we recommend making the colours softer and less contrasting to minimise the risk under Code rule 3.2(h)”.
The Panel noted that the Advisory Service also a raised concern about the depiction of the tiki masks:
“..we are however concerned about the masks. We know that large eyes and smiles can appeal to under 18s as they can look friendly and welcoming. We think the masks’ eyes and mouth are large and their appearance is open to interpretation, but we think they could be perceived as friendly looking… We recommend the masks are re worked to make them less friendly and more mature in appeal and therefore reduce the risk under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel noted that the company had been advised to make changes to the product due to the risk the design posed under the Code. While the company was not bound by the advice, and had chosen not to implement the suggested changes, the Panel considered the advice demonstrated that the company was aware of the potential risk of the design.
The Panel then discussed the flavour ‘Fruit Punch’ and noted that while it would have broad appeal to all ages in isolation, children were predisposed to find sweet and fruit flavours more attractive. The Panel considered that this appeal was compounded by the presentation of ‘Fruit Punch’ which was depicted in a chunky style of font with a tiki mask which had large eyes, a smile and its tongue sticking out in the middle. On balance, the Panel therefore considered that the presentation of the drink’s name and the sweet fruit flavour would enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s in the context of a Tetra Pak container which was also a format used for children’s soft drinks. The company highlighted that the Panel had previously permitted other RTDs and alcohol beverages to reference fruit flavours, even when the packaging was similar to that of soft drinks, such as 330ml cans. The Panel reiterated that a Tetra Pak was a novel form of packaging for alcoholic drinks in the UK market in 2026. The precedents that the company had cited were primarily products that were either in 330ml cans or bottles that were more established in the UK market as alcohol packaging formats. The Panel stated that when new forms of novel packaging entered the UK market, each needed to be assessed on its own merits, drawing from precedent, the overall impression conveyed and the available evidence at the time. The Panel noted that in the context of novel packaging sharing a packaging format with children’s and adult soft drinks, a sweet fruit flavour in that specific context would be a contributary factor enhancing the appeal a product would have to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the artwork used on the packaging and acknowledged the company’s statement that it had been inspired by the ‘Pop Art’ movement of the 1950s-1970s. The Panel noted that the imagery included shapes such as flowers, triangles and swirls alongside a tiki mask, shaka sign, palm trees and cocktail glasses. The Panel noted that the overall design was visually busy with the artwork presented in a basic cartoon-like style with simple illustrations and black keylines featuring on all of them. The Panel considered that this meant the images were less stylised than classic ‘Pop Art’ artworks and presented less maturely and meant that an intended reference to ‘pop art’ was not necessarily obvious without the company’s explanation. The Panel considered the tiki mask in more detail and noted that it was brightly coloured with large eyes, an exaggerated smile and was poking out its tongue. The Panel noted the company response that tiki masks were inspired by Polynesian and Hawaiian culture and had broad appeal. However, while the Panel acknowledged that tiki masks had broad appeal, they could be displayed in many ways and were often created without a smile and with more stern or unfriendly dispositions. In this case, the Panel considered that the depiction of the face with large eyes, a smiling, friendly expression with a poking out tongue meant that it presented in a light-hearted and juvenile way. The Panel discussed case precedents as raised by the company, including Lucky Break, and considered that when assessing any form of cultural heritage under the Code, the execution would be key and reiterated that in this case the tiki mask had been presented with a wide-eyed, smiling face that would resonate with children more than adults. The Panel also noted that the shaka sign was presented in an emoji style which would increase the appeal it had to under-18s who would be familiar with the style. The Panel assessed the images which did not include any intricate detail and were presented as simple designs which increased their resemblance to art styles used in children’s media which often had simple designs with uncomplicated cartoon imagery and minimal details. The Panel noted that the images were additionally presented in a haphazard, busy, style very reminiscent of a child’s or teenager’s doodling, which, in the Panel’s view, would further resonate with under 18s as was consistent with similar precedent from Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings. The Panel considered in addition to that, the imagery included the use of bright primary and secondary colours, yellow and blue which created a high level of contrast against the pink and green packaging. The Panel was of the view that these were all elements that would resonate with children who would find bright contrasting colours and high luminance levels stimulating and eye-catching as reflected in guidance.
Taking the above elements in combination, the Panel concluded that the typography of the brand name ‘BeatBox’ and presentation of the ‘Fruit Punch’ flavour alongside thick black keylines, novel style packaging that was not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, sweet fruit flavour, bright, contrasting colours and simple cartoon images of a friendly tiki mask and shaka emoji sign, created a cumulative impact that meant the overall impression conveyed had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel reiterated that no single element in isolation had necessarily caused a breach and that it was the cumulative impact of all of the features that had led to a breach of the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel welcomed the company’s intent to redesign the product to ensure that the design not only reflected the purchaser’s internal marketing standards but also the minimum standards required by the Code.
Finally, the Panel addressed noted the company’s complaint Portman Group’s Secretariat had declined to move the case to an informal resolution route and therefore prevented the case from being resolved in a swift and mutually agreeable manner. The Chair highlighted clause 5.13 onwards in the Code of Practice which made it clear that the decision as to whether a case should proceed informally or formally was made by the Chair. In this particular case, t the case was not considered suitable for informal resolution as it had been deemed potentially precedent setting and not a clear-cut breach of the Code. The complexity and length of the final decision reflected why the case had required consideration by the full Panel and was not suitable for informal resolution.
Action by Company:
Packaging amended after working with the Advisory Service
* Burst Blue Raspberry (2025), Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon (2022), Dragon Soop Strawberry & Lime (2019), Dragon Soop range (2022), Hoola Hooch (2018), Beavertown’s Bloody Ell (2015), Gamma Ray (2015), Neck Oil (2019), multiple Tiny Rebel cases from 2021, Show Off (2019), Buoyancy Aid (2020), Frosty Jack’s Cider (2020), Flagingo Electric Blue Gin Liqueur (2022), Flamingo Tears (2019), Pixie Tears (2019), Desperados (2018), Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake (2011), Stiffy’s Kola Kubez (2011), Funky Monkey Vodka Shots (2006)
Producer:
BeatBox Netherlands B.V.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I recently saw this product in Morrisons, positioned next to the soft drinks and energy drinks, specifically not in an aisle where they were otherwise selling alcohol. The product has bright, fun imagery which is likely to appeal to under-18s, and is in a ‘juice box’ format. The Fruit Punch flavour variety in particular has tiki masks with the tongues sticking out which is again very likely to appeal to children. The products are 6.1% vol, with 2 units per 330ml carton. I believe this is highly irresponsible marketing of the product, and highly irresponsible of Morrisons to stock this product, especially in the location where they have chosen to stock it in my local store, at the end of the general soft drinks aisle.”
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that while it was grateful for the opportunity to respond to the complaint, it did not believe that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company understood that for alcohol marketing to hold a particular appeal to under-18s, the packaging would need to resonate with them more than it would with adults. The company was disappointed to learn that the drinks had been placed within a soft drink retailing space as this was not in line with its instructions to the distributor about responsible retailing. Nonetheless, the company understood that retail placement was not an element that would be considered by the Panel in determining compliance with the Code.
The company did not believe that a Tetra Pak carton with a screw cap had an inherent child-like appeal as Tetra Pak products aimed at children typically utilised a smaller 200ml size carton which usually had straws rather than a screw cap function. The packaging used for Beatbox however, was a larger 330ml size and had a resealable lid which facilitated consumers to drink responsibly as the carton could then be resealed. The drink’s packaging resembled other adult-targeted alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages that were available on the market in Tetra Pak form. While some of the soft drinks available had both adult and child variants, the child-targeted packaging was differentiated by its smaller size and inclusion of a straw. Furthermore, the company explained that the Tetra Pak format was becoming increasingly popular with adult consumers. The company submitted research which reflected that the respondents preferred Tetra Paks because of their use of plant-based materials, the ease of disposal, and the low CO2 emissions. The company highlighted global market data and stated that 506 alcoholic beverages used Tetra Paks in the UK and Europe. The company shared a number of alcoholic beverages in Tetra Pak cartons in use globally to support this point. The company explained that Tetra Paks were used for both alcohol beverages and soft drinks and this was the same as cans or bottles, which were not held to a more rigorous standard. The company stated that the prevalence of Tetra Paks in the wine-based and RTD categories meant that they could not be considered as a ‘novel’ form of packaging.
The company accepted that the design included a bold colour scheme but did not believe that this element would have an inherent appeal to under-18s. The company referred to multiple case precedents and Portman Group guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which had established that bright colours and cartoon artwork could have a broad range of appeal. In previous case precedent, bright and contrasting colours had been found to be acceptable provided they were not combined with other child-like cues. The company stated that bold black lines were used sparingly on the packaging and the design adopted a complex, urban and detailed graphic style which drew on aesthetics associated with music, nightlife and festival culture. In the case of Blue Razzberry, the company explained that the colour palette incorporated various shades of blue and used illustrated teal panels intended to appeal to adults. The company highlighted several precedent cases where contrasting colours were found to be acceptable by the Panel. In this case, the company stated that the rich blue background did not contrast starkly with the blues and greens in the panels of the artwork. The few splashes of yellow used were minimal and the packaging did not include cartoons, animations or other child-like graphics that would create youth appeal.
The visual style was derived from Pop Art and consciously referenced pop-art influences. The company explained that Pop Art was a mature and historically established art movement originating in the UK and US in the 1950s-1970s and would therefore have an adult appeal as it was not indicative of trends in current youth marketing. Pop art included simple, stylised images with strong keylines but could also be visually busy with a number of individual images. The company referenced case precedent where the Panel had found that 1970s and 1980s musical themes did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the same rationale must be applied to BeatBox which celebrated a style of music created in the 1980s. The name was graphically meant to resemble a “boom box” portable stereo and the images included in the side panels were meant to appeal to legal drinking age adults who had experienced that era. The company explained that the keylines, simplicity and scrapbook type of grouping were part of Pop Art which was an adult-oriented art movement.
The company explained that the images which were used across the range of drinks included shaka hand gestures, palm trees, cocktails, surfboards and tiki masks. These were widely recognised as symbols of relaxation, travel, cocktail culture and as adult lifestyle cues. Stylised imagery of everyday objects was a key characteristic of Pop Art and was represented on the packaging as blue raspberries, cocktails, microphones, a large eye, leaves and flowers which had broad appeal across all ages. The company stated the complex detail helped the imagery present in a mature way. Furthermore, there was no inclusion of elements which would be associated with children’s culture, such as cartoon characters, simplified graphics, mascots or playful anthropomorphic imagery on the label.
The company stated that the reliance on keylines as a basis for finding the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(h) would be contrary to previous Panel precedents and placed the company at a competitive disadvantage. The company referenced several precedents which demonstrated that products which employed thick keylines around text did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the precedent examples demonstrated that the Panel had applied an unfair standard to the BeatBox packaging particularly in regard to the use of bold keylines and shading. The company disagreed that all the fonts used on the packaging were ‘chunky’ and noted that there were different types used on the label. The name ‘BeatBox’ employed a straight-line font and whilst the font used on the flavour ‘Blue Razzberry’ could fairly be described as chunky the company said it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that similar fonts had been used on products which were found to be acceptable and so the adverse decision against BeatBox was arbitrary and without evidentiary support.
The company explained that the name ‘Beatbox’ was firmly rooted in adult culture and was a recognised form of vocal percussion that emerged in the 1980s and was closely associated with music, nightlife and as a performance piece. ‘Beatboxing’ was not a new phenomenon and was used in hip hop music, as a standalone art form and through a cappella groups and EDM music. The name ‘Beatbox’ was therefore not a fun and playful word created by a younger generation but instead had a long history with those who were middle-aged. The company explained that music was important to the brand’s identity with the name and musical cues chosen to appeal to adults. While ‘Beatbox’ was an energetic word, it was not child-coded and could be distinguished from other case precedents which had overtly created a link between a product name and a child’s confectionery item. The brand name was intended to resemble a ‘boom box’ stereo from the 1980s which had been in use when ‘beatboxing’ was developed. ‘Beatboxing’ would appeal to middle-aged adults.
The company had also sought advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service regarding the designs as part of its due diligence and sought to implement feedback. The company stated that it did not consider Blue Raspberry to be a flavour that had a particular appeal to under-18s as raspberries typically had a tart rather than sweet taste. The company explained that Blue Raspberry had gained popularity in the 1970s and was a nostalgic flavour that had a strong resonance with older generations. The name was presented as ‘Blue Razzberry’ which the company stated would not have a particular appeal to under-18s based only on the intentionally misspelled word as many adult products included misspelling. The company added that Blue Raspberry was a flavour that was found in many alcoholic drinks available on the UK market. The company highlighted several precedents where packaging which had sweet, fruity flavours and cartoon imagery which were not found to contribute to the products having a particular appeal to under-18s. The use of fruit flavours had been found compliant on other packaging even if that packaging had cross over with standard soft drink containers. Furthermore, the company stated that the spelling of ‘Razzberry’ would not contribute to the packaging having a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the finding contradicted previous precedent, and noted many adult items existed that used intentional misspelling to appeal to adults.
The company explained that BeatBox was purchased by an affiliate of a founding member of the Portman Group in February 2026 and at the time of purchase, the purchaser was unaware of the ongoing complaint. The company was concerned that previously unarticulated rules were applied to the packaging rather than those set forth in the Code and through previous Panel precedent. The company stated that would be fundamentally unfair allowing its competitors to use designs, graphics and colours which it could not. The company stated that those governed by the Code had a legitimate expectation to treat the Code as a complete and accurate statement of the requirements, whereas the Panel had introduced an ‘I know it when I see it standard’.
The company explained that it had requested the complaint be resolved informally with mutually agreed designs and that this request had been repeated by the purchaser when the complaint was brought to its attention. However, the company stated that the Portman Group had repeatedly refused the requests which put it in a difficult position to fulfil its obligations to supply products to wholesalers. Furthermore, the company stated that it understood the Panel Chair could deem a case suitable to proceed through the Informal Resolution Process at any time and noted that if that was possible, the company would be ready to engage with the Portman Group.
The company was concerned that it was the Panel itself rather than the complainant that had raised concerns under Code rule 3.1 This was procedurally unfair. The company stated that the packaging was unambiguously an alcohol product and referenced previous case precedent which demonstrated that novel packaging did not have an inherent appeal to under-18s in isolation. Similarly, where a drink was clearly alcoholic it did not need to present the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) in words. In this case, the packaging of BeatBox included positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, presented as ‘6.1% Vol’ on the top of three sides of the label, with ‘contains alcohol’ on the front label as well. There was a ‘drink responsibly’ message, a pregnancy warning logo and a don’t drink and drive logo alongside a QR code which connected to responsibledrinking.eu and contained a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The packaging exceeded the standards set by UK labelling law and included the ABV on the top of two panels, in a font size the same as the flavour name, with white numbers with black keylines to draw attention to it. The company highlighted case precedents where the Panel had made suggestions to producers where it believed the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be enhanced but had found no breach of the Code. The company requested that the Panel exercise that option in this case if it believed that the communication of the product’s alcoholic nature could be improved.
The Panel’s assessment
3.1
The Panel raised Code rule 3.1 to consider whether the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the drink’s packaging with absolute clarity.
The Panel assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 330ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that at present in the UK, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and the packaging format was more typically associated with soft drinks aimed at adults and children. The Panel noted the company’s contention that there were 506 flavoured alcohol and wine brands across the UK and continental Europe in 2025 using that packaging format. The Panel noted that the company’s evidence included a document entitled ‘Wines in Tetra Pak in USA’ and included two further pages of ‘RTD alcohol in Tetra Pak in USA’. However, out of the examples shared by the company, the Panel noted that only three of the Tetra Pak products were labelled for sale in the UK market with one screenshot highlighting that one of the products was the first UK RTD sold in Tetra packaging in 2025, further suggesting that they were a new and novel type of packaging in the UK market. While the wider context of the global market was noted, the Panel’s decisions and remit applied to the UK market, and its consideration was based on how an average UK consumer would perceive a product. The Panel acknowledged that the use of Tetra Paks for alcoholic drinks was likely to expand from the current small number in the UK market but at the time of consideration, and in the context of the company’s own market evidence, alcohol beverages in Tetra Paks were still relatively new and represented a small subsection of the UK market. The Panel noted that the purpose of the Code was not to stifle such packaging innovation as long the design of such products complied with the rules.
The Panel discussed the recent precedent regarding VK Squashka, an alcoholic RTD in a 500ml Tetra Pak format, published in May 2026 and shared with the company as part of proceedings. As part of that decision, the Panel had also noted that the Tetra Park format was a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel noted that the VK Squashka precedent reflected the Panel’s application of Code rule 3.1 where it had considered the overall impression conveyed by the product in the context that a Tetra Pak was not a packaging format that UK consumers would readily associated with alcohol and in cases where such product packaging incorporated a number of negative alcohol cues, the packaging needed to ensure that it communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel also discussed precedents raised by the company, including Beavertown Bloody ‘Ell and Loose Juice, where the company had questioned the Panel’s decisions not to find the products in breach of the Code despite recommending improvements to improve the absolute clarity of the products’ alcoholic nature. The Panel stated that every case would be considered on its own merits and a notable difference in this case was the Tetra Pak format which had a significant crossover with soft drinks that UK consumers would not necessarily associate with alcohol, whereas 330ml cans were a common form of packaging in the UK alcohol market. The Panel stated that this did not mean that one format of packaging was preferable over the other, instead, it meant that producers needed to be mindful of how UK consumers would perceive such packaging and consider how this could impact compliance under the Code, particularly rules 3.1 and 3.2(h).
Taking into account the available evidence, the Panel reiterated that the Tetra Pak format was a novel style of packaging which the average UK consumer would not readily link with alcohol. 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 to minimise potential consumer confusion. It was therefore important that recognisable positive alcohol cues were on the label and presented in a clear and unambiguous way. The Panel noted that the guidance stated that the Panel would consider the number of ‘positive’ cues against the number of ‘negative’ cues when determining whether a product’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The guidance listed a number of ‘negative’ cues as a warning to producers which included ‘dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery on packaging, novel packaging, overly busy design, cartoon-like illustrations and primary colours’. Guidance stated that no one element would make a drink’s packaging compliant with rule 3.1 and if the cumulative impact of negative cues outweighed the positive ones (such as the ABV, shape of container etc.), the Panel could find the product in breach of the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label and noted that the drink’s name ‘Beatbox’ and flavour descriptor ‘Blue Razzberry’ were the most prominent words on the label. The Panel considered that ‘Beatbox’ would generally be understood as a reference to a form of vocal percussion that involved using the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to mimic drum machines and other musical instruments. The Panel discussed that this was the primary meaning of the word which had been acknowledged in the company’s response to the complaint, where it explained that the name was inspired by the vocal style of music. The Panel considered that on that basis, ‘Beatbox’ was not intended to be a phrase or word that consumers would typically associate with an alcoholic drink. The Panel considered the next most prominent words on the front of the packaging which was ‘Blue Razzberry’. The Panel acknowledged that blue raspberry was a flavour used in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drink flavours. However, the Panel expressed concern that in the context of a novel container, the musically themed name and emphasis of the fruit flavour could cause confusion as to whether the drink contained alcohol if not further qualified with positive alcohol cues.
The Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that there were some positive cues, including the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) presented as ‘6.1% vol’ on two sides of the packaging. The Panel noted that while the ABV was positioned at the top of the label, it was in smaller text than the brand name and flavour. While the Panel noted that the front label included the text ‘contains alcohol’ at the bottom, this was presented in a relatively small white font and was difficult to read due to the size and the contrast of the blue background. Alongside this, the label contained abstract and brightly coloured artwork which wrapped around the sides of the container to create a busy visual pattern and distracted from the communication of the alcohol related information. The Panel noted there were some positive alcohol cues on the reverse label which included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo, a don’t drink and drive warning logo and unit content information, however these were presented in small difficult to read white text at the bottom. The Panel noted that above this information there was white text outlined in a thick black keyline which stated that the drink was ‘best serve chilled’ and the simple descriptor ‘drink’. The Panel considered that a consumer’s eye would naturally be drawn to this information which was far more prominent and easier to read and did not indicate the product’s alcoholic nature compared to the small text at the very bottom of the panel which was difficult to read.
The Panel noted the QR code where consumers could connect to responsibledrinking.eu which contained advice on drinking and moderation, as well as a link to the UK’s Drinkaware website. The Panel did not believe that a QR code should be used as an indication to consumers that a product contained alcohol. QR codes were present on a range of products, not just alcoholic drinks, and it should not be incumbent on a consumer to scan a product to seek out positive alcohol cues if the primary packaging contained a significant number of cues which detracted from a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel carefully considered the above elements to determine the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. While there were some positive alcohol cues on the label, most of them were difficult to read and were markedly less visible than the other text which emphasised the word ‘drink’, fruit flavour and link to music. This impression was compounded by the use of bright colours and busy, visually distracting imagery which further detracted from the clear communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature. In the context of 3.1 guidance, the Panel noted that the product incorporated multiple negative cues that had been listed as a warning to producers to be mindful of when ensuring that a product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the company’s point that guidance was not clear enough when detailing what ‘work harder’ entailed under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered that current guidance was clear on what the Panel would consider in terms of positive and negative cues and how these elements could impact the overall impression conveyed. The Panel noted that case precedents also reflected how the rule may be applied, particularly in cases such as VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Blossom Hill Spritz, all of which highlighted how negative cues could detract from clarity regarding a product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the company’s purchaser, a member of the Portman Group, had approved and contributed to Portman Group guidance over a number of years. The Panel noted that the rules of the Code were broadly written, with supporting guidance, to provide a degree of flexibility so that standards were not overly prescriptive and reflected the spirit of what the Code was seeking to achieve; a balance between creative and innovative marketing, whilst protecting consumers from harm. The rules could not be written to provide absolute certainty and dictate a bright line of compliance but Portman Group guidance, Panel precedent and the Advisory Service were designed to assist producers in understanding how the Code could be applied. The Panel encouraged the company to liaise with the Portman Group if it believed that improvements could be made to current guidance to assist the industry further.
The Panel noted the company’s assurance that the product met the minimum legal standards in the UK. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to ensure that positive alcohol cues, such as the product’s ABV and alcohol descriptor, were clearly visible, easy to read and not undermined by negative cues such as novel packaging, an overly busy design, a dominance of non-alcohol-related imagery, cartoon like-illustrations and primary colours, all of which were present in this case. Therefore, on balance, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the name, fruit flavour, colourful, busy label and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink. Alongside this, a significant amount of the alcohol information that had been included was in small difficult to read white font on a blue background that was less prominent than the fruit flavour and busy visual artwork, in the context of novel packaging that was currently more commonly associated with soft drinks. The Panel reiterated that while novel packaging was not inherently problematic under the Code, guidance and precedent clearly stated that such products needed to work harder to communicate a product’s alcoholic nature to minimise consumer confusion. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and 4 found the product in breach Code rule 3.1.
In respect of the company’s contention that it was procedurally unfair for the Panel to raise Code rule 3.1, the Panel noted Code paragraph 5.24:
The Panel meets to consider the product’s packaging or promotion after having an opportunity to study the dossier. The Panel is not bound to restrict its consideration of the product’s packaging or promotion to the narrow terms of the complaint but may consider the packaging or promotion under any section of the Code that it considers relevant, regardless of whether this section relates to the specific complaint or has been highlighted in the dossier by the Code Secretariat or otherwise.
This had been communicated to the company in writing at the beginning of the complaint process. The Panel noted that roughly 52 case precedents had been referenced during the case, many by the company, and around 40% of the cases cited included the Panel raising additional Code rules of its own accord. Regardless of this, the Panel considered that the company had been given ample opportunity to respond to the concerns raised under rule 3.1 prior to the Panel making its final decision and it had done so. The Panel explained that such a mechanism provided producers with more regulatory certainty as the entirety of the Code was considered rather than relying on multiple complaints and hearings to address any potential issues. In addition to this, the Panel explained that, as an independent body, it was important for it to address packaging and or/ marketing that, in its view, did not meet the standards set by the Code if such matters had been brought to its attention via the formal investigation route to ensure that high standards of responsible naming, packaging and promotion were applied consistently.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted its decision under Code rule 3.1 and reiterated that at the time of consideration in 2026, Tetra Paks were not well-known containers for an alcoholic drink and were more commonly associated with both adult and children’s soft drinks in the UK market. The Panel discussed the company’s response that ‘Beatbox’ had a screw cap mechanism which differentiated it from soft drinks in Tetra Pak packaging targeted at children as these drinks required the use of a straw to access the liquid. The Panel acknowledged that both adult and children’s soft drinks were common on the UK market in a Tetra Pak format and were therefore not exclusively used for children’s drinks meaning that a Tetra Pak did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s. However, while many soft drinks for children in Tetra Pak containers included a straw, there were also child-targeted products which had a screw cap style lid similar to Beatbox. The Panel therefore reminded alcoholic drink producers that when using a novel container in alcohol marketing, particularly a packaging style that was also used for children’s drinks, caution should be exercised. In such circumstances, the Panel explained that alcohol marketing needed to ensure that the presentation of the packaging had an adult appeal and did not particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel considered the company’s contention that the Panel had inconsistently applied Code rule 3.2(h) across a multitude of design aspects which included the use of keylines, font style, fruit flavour, contrasting colours and artwork. The Panel noted that the company’s response discussed each of these individual elements as separate points to convey the assertion that each aspect did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that guidance to the rule made it clear that both the Panel and the Advisory Service would assess the overall impression conveyed by packaging and specifically ‘this can mean that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, may change when combined with other elements and create an overall impression which is non-compliant.’ ( Guidance Note – 3.2(h) – Particular Appeal to under-18s, November 2023) The Panel noted that while it would provide analysis regarding its reasoning relating to each design feature, its conclusion was based on the overall impression conveyed when all of the elements were considered on a cumulative basis.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the brand name ‘Beatbox’ referenced a vocal musical style which was popularised in the 1980s. The Panel agreed that ‘Beatbox’ as a name or reference to musical style would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as it was an established form of music that appealed to a range of ages. Furthermore, the Panel considered that some under-18s would be unaware of its meaning or the music style. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label which was brightly coloured with ‘Beatbox’ displayed in large white text with a thick black keyline vertically on the front label. The Panel discussed that while ‘Beatbox’ as a reference to a musical style would not create a particular appeal to under-18s, the typography which employed three thick contrasting keylines meant it stood out and would be particularly eye-catching for those under-18 as a style. The Panel discussed that inclusion of thick keylines around a chunky font was a feature often used in marketing aimed at under-18s because children found bold keylines attractive as they developed visual perception skills as noted in guidance. In those instances, the attraction for children was not necessarily dictated by the meaning of the word, but instead how it was presented with thick bold outlined text being highly appealing.
The company highlighted that the Panel had permitted other RTDs in previous cases* to use keylines. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that the overwhelming majority of cases analysed were prior to 2022, with one exception cited from 2025. The Panel noted that accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) had been subject to an extensive revision in November 2023 when the Panel and the Portman Group had jointly commissioned Kids Industries, a marketing agency with specific expertise on marketing products aimed at children, to provide insights on marketing techniques that are used to appeal to children and teenagers outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel discussed 3.2(h) guidance (section 4, page 4) which provided detailed guidance on areas producers should be mindful of under the rule. The Panel discussed the case precedents raised by the company and noted that consideration of keylines had featured in Panel decisions from around 2015 onwards. However, guidance from the Portman Group on how Code rule 3.2(h) could be interpreted was extensively developed in 2023 and had led to the current version of guidance which was its most detailed version to date and was the first version to include advice about the use of keylines. The Panel acknowledged that regulatory consistency was important, but the Panel also considered that self-regulatory standards, including guidance behind a rule, could not stay static, and it was important for accompanying guidance to reflect a changing environment, in marketing, in product development, and in society generally. The guidance update had led to enhanced clarification for the Panel in its application of Code rule 3.2(h) and the Panel noted that there were numerous precedents after 2023 which reflected a consistent application of Code rule 3.2(h) that had been shared with the company as part of the case but had not been referenced as part of its response. In particular, the Panel discussed recent precedents including VK Squashka, Sip n Drip and Cactus Jacks, all of which included reference to how thick keylines could impact the overall impression conveyed under Code rule 3.2(h). However, the Panel emphasised that while precedents could provide a guide for other producers, every case would be considered on its own merits and ultimately, the overall impression conveyed by a product could lead to instances where a straight read across was not always possible. In cases where interpretation may not be clear-cut, the Panel encouraged producers to use the Portman Group’s Advisory Service. While such advice was not binding on the Panel, and could not provide guaranteed assurance, it was a service that could help producers mitigate risk under the Code.
The Panel noted that the company had sought free, confidential advice from the Portman Group’s Advisory Service, prior to the purchaser’s acquisition, and the advice had been shared with the Panel under Code paragraph 5.25. The Panel discussed the advice that the company had received, initially only regarding the Blue Razzberry variant which stated:
“We do remain concerned about the name and style of the blue raspberries as well as the spelling ‘razzberry’. We are concerned these elements are likely to have a youthful appeal. In the Advisory Service we will always err on the side of caution and so to reduce risk under the Code, we would recommend the raspberry images are depicted in a more realistic way with a more straight lined and less ‘bubble’ style of writing the flavour with the correct spelling”.
The Panel noted that the Advisory Service had also stated:
“We have previously explained that black, bold keylines can contribute to packaging having a particular appeal to under-18s and we consider ‘beatbox’ quite a playful and fun word”.
The Panel noted that the company had been advised to make a few changes to the design due to the risk the design posed under the Code. While the company was not bound by the advice, and had chosen not to implement the suggested changes, the Panel considered the advice demonstrated that the company was aware of the potential risk of the design.
The Panel then discussed the flavour ‘Blue Razzberry’ and noted that while it would have broad appeal to all ages in isolation, children were predisposed to find sweet and fruit flavours more attractive. Furthermore, ‘razzberry’ was intentionally misspelled which characterised the flavour as being more child-like and juvenile and this was further compounded as the flavour was presented in a bubble-writing style of font with a black keyline. On balance, the Panel therefore considered that the presentation of the drink’s name and the sweet fruit flavour would enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s in the context of a Tetra Pak container which was also a format used for children’s soft drinks. The company highlighted that the Panel had previously permitted other RTDs and alcohol beverages to reference fruit flavours, even when the packaging was similar to that of soft drinks, such as 330ml cans. The Panel reiterated that a Tetra Pak was a novel form of packaging for alcoholic drinks in the UK market in 2026. The precedents that the company had cited were primarily products that were either in 330ml cans or bottles that were more established in the UK market as alcohol packaging formats. The Panel stated that when new forms of novel packaging entered the UK market, each needed to be assessed on its own merits, drawing from precedent, the overall impression conveyed and the available evidence at the time. The Panel noted that in the context of novel packaging sharing a packaging format with children’s and adult soft drinks, a sweet fruit flavour in that specific context would be a contributary factor enhancing the appeal a product would have to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the imagery used on the packaging and acknowledged the company’s statement that it had been inspired by the ‘Pop Art’ movement of the 1950s-1970s. The Panel noted that the imagery included abstract shapes such as lightning bolts, cocktail glasses, microphones, rectangles and swirls alongside a large eye, raspberries and leaves. While the presentation of some of the items was abstract, the overall design was visually busy with the artwork presented in a basic cartoon-like style with simple illustrations and black keylines featuring on all of them. The Panel considered that this meant the images were less stylised than classic ‘Pop Art’ artworks, presented less maturely and meant that an intended reference to ‘pop art’ was not necessarily obvious without the company’s explanation. The Panel considered that the individual artwork features of a large eye, microphones, cocktail glasses, raspberries and leaves would not necessarily resonate with under-18s more than adults, though nonetheless they would have a level of appeal to them. The Panel assessed the images which did not include any intricate detail and were presented as simple, and sometimes fantastical, designs which increased their resemblance to art styles used in children’s media which often had simple designs with uncomplicated cartoon imagery and minimal details. The Panel noted that the images, and in particular the random placement of large stylised eyes and lightning bolts, were additionally presented in a haphazard, busy, style very reminiscent of a child’s or teenager’s doodling, which, in the Panel’s view, would further resonate with under 18s as was consistent with similar precedent from Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings. The Panel highlighted that alongside this, the imagery included the use of bright primary and secondary colours, yellow, blue, and pink which created a level of contrast against the navy and teal packaging. The Panel was of the view that these were all elements that would resonate with children who would find bright contrasting colours and high luminance levels stimulating and eye-catching as reflected in guidance.
Taking the above elements in combination, the Panel concluded that the typography of the brand name ‘Beatbox’ and bubble-writing of the ‘Blue Razzberry’ flavour both with thick black keylines, misspelled word of ‘razzberry’, novel style packaging that was not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, sweet fruit flavour, bright, contrasting colours and simple cartoon images created a cumulative impact that meant the overall impression conveyed had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel reiterated that no single element in isolation had necessarily caused a breach and that it was the cumulative impact of all of the features that had led to a breach of the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel welcomed the company’s intent to redesign the product to ensure that the design not only reflected the purchaser’s internal marketing standards but also the minimum standards required by the Code.
Finally, the Panel noted the company’s complaint that Portman Group’s Secretariat had declined to move the case to an informal resolution route and therefore prevented the case from being resolved in a swift and mutually agreeable manner. The Chair highlighted clause 5.13 onwards in the Code of Practice which made it clear that the decision as to whether a case should proceed informally or formally was made by the Chair. In this particular case, the case was not considered suitable for informal resolution as it had been deemed potentially precedent setting and not a clear-cut breach of the Code. The complexity and length of the final decision reflected why the case had required consideration by the full Panel and was not suitable for informal resolution.
Action by Company:
Packaging amended after working with the Advisory Service
* Burst Blue Raspberry (2025), Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon (2022), Dragon Soop Strawberry & Lime (2019), Dragon Soop range (2022), Hoola Hooch (2018), Beavertown’s Bloody Ell (2015), Gamma Ray (2015), Neck Oil (2019), multiple Tiny Rebel cases from 2021, Show Off (2019), Buoyancy Aid (2020), Frosty Jack’s Cider (2020), Flagingo Electric Blue Gin Liqueur (2022), Flamingo Tears (2019), Pixie Tears (2019), Desperados (2018), Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake (2011), Stiffy’s Kola Kubez (2011), Funky Monkey Vodka Shots (2006)
Producer:
Sazerac UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
‘The product just looks like a toy. It’s shaped like a bright blue tennis ball, the name BuzzBall sounds like an energy drink or action hero, and its flavoured Berry Cherry Limeade (which is clearly aimed at children. Which grown up person chooses to drink something of this flavour?). Products like this should not be on sale in the UK. They are clearly appealing to underage drinkers. I appreciate it’s hard to monitor off licences who sell alcohol to children under the age of 18 — they are everywhere in London — but to think it was being handed out for free from an arcade machine in such a public space is appalling.’
Decision:
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.
NOT UPHELD
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.
NOT UPHELD
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.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it was a family-owned business with nearly 400 years of history and operated with strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values. As a responsible drinks producer, the company sought to comply with all legal and industry requirements in multiple jurisdictions globally with a key focus on appropriate marketing.
The company explained that the Berry Cherry Limeade version of the drink was added to its product line in 2026 and was sold through licensed retail premises. The flavour profile was a combination of cherry and blue raspberry with hints of lemon and lime and was designed to meet market demand for fruit flavoured ready-to-drink cocktails. The company confirmed that the drink brand was marketed solely at adults of a legal drinking age.
The company explained that BuzzBallz was a ready-to-drink premixed spirit which had been established as one of the leading products in its category in multiple markets since its creation in 2009. The company noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair had raised a Metro article for discussion regarding the origin of the drink’s name. The company explained that it understood the name was created in two parts with ‘buzz’ referring to a childhood nickname of the original founder and ‘ball’ as a reference to the near-spherical plastic container synonymous with the brand. The company explained that the previous complaint and decision from 2022 were processed prior to it acquiring the brand and it assumed that the information provided then was an accurate account. The company noted that it was not possible to verify the information provided to the journalist in the article but that it was possible recollections of the name’s origin could differ. The company stated that while recollections could differ, this did not impact the name’s compliance under the Code as this was determined by the product’s marketing.
The company stated that the drink did not resemble a toy in any meaningful way and it was apparent that it was a beverage because of the stainless-steel lid and ring pull at the top. The company highlighted that the packaging included clear white text on the front and back label that indicated it was an alcoholic beverage including the word ‘cocktails’, the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), references to an ‘alcoholic drink’ and numerous responsible drinking messages including the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines, unit content information and pregnancy warning logo.
The company stated that the shape of the container did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company explained that the product had a near spherical shape which did not resonate with under-18s as opposed to adults and that was accepted by the Panel in its previous 2022 decision. The company highlighted the Panel’s previous conclusion which had stated that any similarity to a ball was passing and not identical. The company emphasised that the difference was further compounded by the ring pull top lid and flat bottom which enabled the container to act as a receptacle for liquid and was therefore clearly not intended to be used as a toy. The company added that the packaging did not include any interactive elements or effects and while the shape may be considered innovative, this did not mean it had a particular appeal to under-18s by virtue of being novel. The company stated that it was not aware of any children’s product that had similarity to the drink and that the packaging made it clear it was an alcoholic drink for adult consumption.
The company stated that the blue colour of the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and instead allowed consumers to easily identify the flavour of the drink, as blue distinguished the raspberry flavour from other red berry fruit flavours. The company explained that the packaging had no contrasting colours and the blue colour was not neon in appearance and was uniformly applied with no luminance, sparkle or glitter effect. The only other colour used on the packaging was a white font to ensure clarity of the text so consumers could easily ascertain the drink contained alcohol. Furthermore, the company highlighted that the use of the colour blue in alcoholic drinks was widespread and commonplace in the market.
The company explained that the font used on the label was sharp, minimalist and was intentionally designed to portray key information in an uncluttered way. It was not childlike or bright and had no high contrast or thick keyline elements. There were no characters or any other imagery on the packaging that could have particular appeal to under-18s and the pared back simple design demonstrated that the drink was targeted at adults.
The company disagreed that the name related to an energy drink or action hero and stated that even if ‘buzz’ was associated with those concepts, it did not mean the drink had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the packaging clearly communicated that the product was an alcoholic drink and energy drinks were usually packaged in cans commonly with contrasting bright colours as part of the packaging design. Similarly, the company was not aware of any action hero themed drinks on the market but maintained in both instances such products did not bare similarity to BuzzBallz.
The company rejected that the flavour of the drink would have a particular appeal to under-18s and reiterated that there were several blue raspberry alcoholic drinks on the market which were popular with adults. The company stated that sweet fruit flavours could have broad appeal across all age ranges and was consistent with Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) as well as previous precedents from Panel decisions. Furthermore, the company explained that the drink was not named after any well-known confectionery items but even if it were, that would not necessarily mean the drink had a particular appeal to under-18s. On that basis, the company stated it did not believe the drink’s name or packaging was in breach Code rule 3.2(h).
The company noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code Rule 3.2(a) for consideration. The company explained that the drink’s name did not give undue emphasis to the drink’s higher alcoholic nature or intoxicating effect. The company stated that while the ABV of the drink was made clear to consumers, it was not incorporated into the drink’s name to become the main message. The company stated that ‘BuzzBallz’ was the most prominent wording on the packaging with the other aspects of the label, such as the flavour and drink descriptor, given equal prominence. The company explained that there was no emotive or exaggerated language used nor were additional statements or imagery which alluded to the strength of the drink. The company did not consider that the drink was particularly high strength for the product category but nevertheless the alcoholic content was displayed in factual, neutral terms. Furthermore, the company stated that the word ‘buzz’ could be used to describe a feeling of excitement and in the context of the Panel’s decision in 2022 where it stated that the name did not suggest that it could change a consumer’s mood or behaviour it therefore followed the word could not suggest it placed undue emphasis on an intoxicating effect.
The company noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code Rule 3.2(f) for consideration. The company disagreed that ‘BuzzBallz’ or the word ‘buzz’ encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The company noted that the packaging had multiple responsible drinking messages and contained 2.7 units of alcohol, well within the recommendation of four units for single serve containers. The company stated that ‘buzz’ only appeared as part of the brand name and there was no indication on the packaging or within wider marketing that suggested it could change a person’s mood or behaviour by giving them a ‘buzz’. The company did not agree that the packaging implied that the drink could give a person a ‘buzz’. However, even if ‘buzz’ was interpreted in such a way, a person could describe having a ‘buzz’ in several different circumstances, including when busy or, more commonly, excited. Additionally, the packaging did not contain any words or imagery which referred to a lengthy period of consumption and the flat bottom container would not encourage a ‘down in one’ style of consumption.
The Panel’s assessment
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 explained that at the preliminary investigation stage, Code rule 3.2(a) had been raised in relation to the drink’s name and specifically the question of whether ‘buzz’ in the context of a ready-to-drink (RTD) with an alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 13.5% placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the product. The Panel Chair acknowledged the previous decision made about the drink’s name under Code rule 3.2(j) in 2022 whereby the Panel had ruled that the product name was not in breach of the Code. The Chair confirmed that the Panel would have due regard to the precedent set, however, the Chair considered that there was merit in discussing the name under Code rule 3.2(a) which had not been discussed in 2022.
The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that the drink had an ABV of 13.5% which was stronger than the average RTD strength for the category defined as 4.6% ABV in accompanying Portman Group guidance to Code rule 3.2(a). On that basis, the Panel recognised that BuzzBallz Berry Cherry Limeade had a higher than average strength ABV within the RTD category which meant that both clauses of Code rule 3.2(a) would be applicable for review. The Panel discussed the wording of Code rule 3.2(a) and noted that a product could not place undue emphasis on its higher alcoholic strength and/or the product’s intoxicating effect. The Panel noted that a product which had a higher than average strength ABV compared to its category would not automatically breach the Code and as always, the overall impression conveyed would determine compliance with the rule.
The Panel discussed the name ‘Buzzballz’ and specifically whether the use of the word ‘buzz’ in the brand name placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the product. The Panel noted accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(a) which stated that any product name which alluded to the intoxicating effect of alcohol should be avoided as it would go beyond factually communicating the drink’s strength. The Panel discussed the company’s response and noted the point that the word ‘buzz’ was commonly used to describe a feeling of excitement and that such a suggestion did not then infer that undue emphasis had been placed on an intoxicating effect. The company highlighted that as the Panel had already ruled that the product did not suggest a change in a consumer’s mood and behaviour then it would also follow that as a potential ‘feeling’ a complaint against the product could not be upheld for suggesting it would provide an intoxicating effect.
The Panel considered the precedent that had formed part of the 2022 BuzzBallz decision under Code rule 3.2(j). As part of its original decision, the Panel had noted that the definition of ‘buzz’ could refer to the slight intoxication from consuming alcohol or drugs and could also refer to the feeling of being excited. As part of this precedent, the Panel had specifically concluded that there was nothing on the packaging which suggested that consumption of the product would generate a ‘buzz’. The Panel acknowledged that the packaging, aside from the flavour name, had not changed since 2022.
At the preliminary investigation stage, the Chair of the Panel had raised a Metro Article originally published in November 2025 and had been updated in January 2026 which suggested that the founder of Buzzballz, Merrilee Kick, named the products in reference to the feeling it would evoke and the shape. In response to the 2022 decision, the original founder had explained that the ‘buzz’ part of the product name had been chosen in reference to their childhood nickname as a track and field athlete who would ‘buzz’ past people on the track. In response to the Metro Article, the current producer, Sazerac, confirmed that the submission from 2022 was prepared by the founder and assumed that legal advisers would have ensured it was an accurate account. In any case, the producer highlighted that the origin of the name was not determinative when assessing compliance with the Code as the word ‘buzz’ itself was acceptable in the context of the 2022 Panel’s decision regarding 3.2(j) which concluded that the name ‘Buzzballz’ did not suggest it could change a consumer’s mood or behaviour. The Panel discussed the Metro Article and noted that it was difficult to ascertain with a level of certainty exactly what the origin story was in relation to the product name. Regardless of this, the Panel acknowledged that the acceptability of the word ‘buzz’ would be considered on its own merit and in the context of the case at hand.
The Panel debated the meaning of the word ‘buzz’ in the context of an alcoholic drink and acknowledged that the noun usage of the word to receive a ‘buzz’ from alcohol specifically referred to a ‘feeling’ of excitement or happiness which had been induced by a stimulant. In the context of the 2022 BuzzBallz decision, the Panel was aware that it had already concluded that the product did not suggest that consumption of the drink would generate or cause such a feeling under Code rule 3.2(j). The Panel noted that as part of that decision it had stated that the word ‘buzz’ could refer to the feeling of being slightly intoxicated but had concluded that in the context of the packaging there was nothing which suggested consumption of the product would change a consumer’s mood or behaviour or that consumption would generate a ‘buzz’. In that context, the Panel considered that, as it had previously concluded, as there was not enough to suggest that the word ‘buzz’ would provide an ‘effect’ then it could not be said that the word placed undue emphasis on a potential intoxicating effect. The Panel acknowledged that while all alcoholic drinks would have a level of intoxicating effect, whether it be mild or strong, the rule wording specifically focused on how the product was marketed and in this instance the Panel considered that the word ‘buzz’ alone was not enough to place undue emphasis on the potential intoxicating effect of the alcohol.
The Panel then considered whether the name and its packaging placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength of the product. The Panel acknowledged that it was not within the scope of the Code to regulate against products that had a higher than average alcoholic strength within a drink category and that it could only focus on how such products were marketed and presented. The Panel reiterated the points made in its discussion regarding intoxicating effect and acknowledged that the word ‘buzz’ could refer to the generation of an ‘effect’ and ‘feeling’ from a stimulant such as alcohol, drugs or caffeine, rather than the strength of such a stimulant. Therefore, the Panel considered that the word ‘buzz’ in isolation did not directly or indirectly link to an inherent suggestion that an alcoholic drink was strong or higher than its category average.
The Panel then considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and noted that the final ‘z’ at the end of ‘ballz’ was positioned tilted from the rest of the text. The Panel discussed that while it could potentially be interpreted as being skewed from intoxication, there was nothing else on the front or back of the packaging to suggest that the letter was tilted due to intoxication. In addition to this, the Panel noted that it appeared after the word ‘ball’ which further created a level of separation with ‘buzz’. After careful assessment of the packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded there was nothing else on the label which suggested that ‘buzz’ placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength of the product.
After careful discussion, the Panel concluded that while the incorporation of the word ‘buzz’ in the brand name was close to the line of acceptability, the name and the packaging did not place an undue emphasis on the product’s higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating effect. The Panel therefore concluded that the packaging was not in breach of Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(f)
The Panel discussed whether the packaging could encourage illegal, immoderate or irresponsible consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair explained that Code rule 3.2(f) had been raised in relation to the drink’s name to consider whether ‘buzz’ encouraged illegal, immoderate or irresponsible consumption.
The Panel discussed the principle of Code rule 3.2(f) and the two specific clauses which prevented the encouragement of immoderate or irresponsible consumption, both of which were further defined in accompanying guidance to the rule. The Panel discussed the application of immoderate consumption and noted that while the drink had a higher than average strength ABV, it contained 2.7 units in a single serve non-resealable container which was below the four unit threshold defined in guidance as requiring mitigating risk factors. The Panel noted that the packaging had a flat bottom to be placed down and did not include any language which encouraged a consumer to drink immoderately in the context of its back label which included a responsible drinking message and the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines.
The Panel then discussed irresponsible consumption and accompanying guidance which clarified that the rule disallowed alcohol marketing that encouraged drinking styles that could lead to drunkenness, binge drinking or other types of irresponsible consumption. The Panel debated the word ‘buzz’ in this context and whether it encouraged a form of irresponsible consumption. The Panel noted its rulings under Code rules 3.2(j) and (a) and reiterated that ‘buzz’ could refer to a ‘feeling’ of excitement or happiness which had been induced by a stimulant, such as alcohol, drugs or caffeine. However, the Panel considered that in this particular case there was nothing on the packaging that encouraged an irresponsible or immoderate style of consumption that would directly result in intoxication. Accordingly, the product was not found in breach of Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel Chair noted the Panel’s previous decisions in 2022 under Code rule 3.2(h) regarding BuzzBallz Choc Tease, BuzzBallz Strawberry ‘Rita and BuzzBallz Chili Mango which had concluded that the products did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Chair explained that the case had been put forward for consideration because the complainant had raised concerns that the flavour ‘Berry Cherry Limeade’ contributed toward a particular appeal to under-18s and the flavour variant had not been previously considered.
The Panel discussed the precedent under Code rule 3.2(h) where it had concluded that the shape of the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s which had also been reflected in a 2015 case regarding a bauble drinking vessel. The Panel assessed the packaging of BuzzBallz Berry Cherry Limeade which had the same spherical shape with ring pull top found on a can and flat bottom base. The Panel considered that while the packaging shape bore a similarity to a ball, balls were not inherently toys. As highlighted in the 2022 decision, the Panel reiterated that balls were used for sports played by adults, as well as children, and would have broad appeal across all ages depending on presentation. The Panel noted the company’s points of response that while the packaging was innovative for an alcoholic drink it still retained a ring pull top lid identifying it as a drink receptacle, was clearly alcoholic, did not include any interactive elements and did not resemble any other children’s products for it to be mistaken for a soft drink or a toy.
The Panel reviewed the rest of the packaging and discussed the complainant’s concern that the product name sounded like an action hero. The Panel noted the company’s response that the product did not resemble an action hero toy, nor did it include imagery or text which referenced such characters or other childlike items. The Panel noted that the text employed a mature straight lined font, with no curved edges or bubble writing style text which could enhance the overall appeal the container would have to under-18s. The Panel considered that other than the flavour name and colour, the packaging was consistent with the previous packaging that was subject to decision in 2022 and had not materially changed. The Panel therefore reiterated the conclusion it had come to in 2022, that the product did not have a particular appeal to under-18s on the basis of the product’s shape alone.
In light of the above, the Panel noted that the flavour and blue liquid colour that was visible through the clear packaging were the two differentiating factors compared to the 2022 precedent. The Panel discussed the bright blue liquid which was visible through the clear container with no other bright or contrasting colours present. The Panel noted that the white text did not have a high level of luminance against the blue and appeared muted.
The Panel considered that fruit flavoured drinks were common in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks on the market which included adult drinks and those marketed primarily to children. In drinks that were targeted at children, the flavour profiles tended to include combinations that were mainly sweet or fruit flavoured to suit children’s simpler taste palates. The Panel considered that ‘limeade’ was not a particularly widespread soft drink flavour in the UK and was not a flavour incorporated in children’s products because it had an acidic, sharp taste. The Panel noted that while ‘Berry Cherry Limeade’ was predominantly a fruit flavoured drink, it had both a sweet and sour profile that was complex and could have appeal to a broad range of age groups. During discussion the Panel also noted that in line with precedent and guidance, a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute particular appeal to under-18s. In this particular case, the Panel did not consider that the sweet and sour flavour on a blue, fairly simple, albeit innovative, packaging design was enough to create a level of particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel noted that while the product had become widely popular, it was notably appealing for those in a younger age bracket of 18-25 years old which was a legitimate age group for alcohol producers to market to, as long as such marketing did not particularly appeal to those who were under-18. In the context of the Gacha Machine Promotional Activity, the Panel expressed a level of concern at how the product was presented in accompanying marketing but noted that such marketing or advertising was to be addressed within the appropriate regulatory framework, whether that be as a promotional item under the Portman Group’s Code of Practice or as online advertising under the Advertising Standards Authority’s Committee of Advertising Practice Code.
In the context of the packaging alone, the Panel concluded that the product’s simplistic design meant that there was no single element that had a particular appeal to under-18s, nor was there an overall impression conveyed that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Sazerac UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
‘I was shocked to come across an arcade machine on the SouthBank in London, in late Feb, handing out free toys and alcohol. How is handing out free alcohol from a huge arcade machine, covered in emojis and cartoon characters, socially responsible? I could see children immediately drawn to it. Finally, it was giving out free soft toys, the sort a 5-year-old might like.’
Decision:
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was a family-owned business with nearly 400 years of history and operated with strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values. As a responsible drinks producer, the company sought to comply with all legal and industry requirements in multiple jurisdictions globally with a key focus on appropriate marketing.
The company stated that BuzzBallz was a ready-to-drink premixed spirit which had been established as one of the leading products in multiple markets since 2009. The company explained that the name ‘BuzzBallz’ had been created in two parts, with ‘buzz’ referring to a childhood nickname of the original founder and ‘ball’ as a reference to the near-spherical plastic container synonymous with the brand.
The company explained that the Berry Cherry Limeade version of the drink was added to its product line in 2026 and was sold through licensed retail premises. The flavour profile was a combination of cherry and blue raspberry with hints of lemon and lime and was designed to meet market demand for fruit flavoured ready-to-drink cocktails. The company confirmed that the drink brand was marketed solely at adults of a legal drinking age.
The company explained that the Gacha Machine promotional activity was designed with an adult audience in mind and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) which highlighted that the overall impression of an activity would be taken into consideration, and in this case, the overall impression conveyed was of a mature nature. The company highlighted that the majority of the images depicted on the Gacha Machine were of the drink with statements that it contained ‘13.5% Alc by Vol’. The company added that the most prominent wording was the brand name ‘BuzzBallz’ alongside the phrase ‘ready-to-go cocktails’ which made it clear that the machine was dispensing alcohol. The company explained that the colour of the machine was one shade of blue with no contrasting bright colours, sparkles or glitter effects. The company stated that the arcade concept was designed to appeal to an adult audience as there had been significant growth in adult-focused experiential entertainment, such as arcade themed venues which attracted numerous annual visitors. In addition to this, the company explained that it had chosen a Gacha Machine design because of the rise in popularity of Japanese culture amongst UK adults.
The company highlighted that press images of the event demonstrated it had only been attended by adults. Furthermore, the company had implemented various measures to reduce risk of the promotional activity appealing to under-18s. The company highlighted that all participants were required to read terms and conditions which set out that a person must be 18 or over to be eligible and all consumers who wished to take part were subject to age verification checks. The company explained that wider signage surrounding the event warned that the promotional activity was strictly for those aged “18+ ONLY”.
The company acknowledged that even a single complaint could be upheld. However, the company stated that in the context of a promotional activity that was undertaken in a very busy central London location, only one complaint was received which suggested that the view the activity could have a particular appeal to under-18s was an outlier. The company stated that it did not believe the promotional activity had a particular appeal to under-18s but clarified that it was a one-off event and had no future plans to use the Gacha Machine again.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the Gacha Machine promotional activity had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted the company’s response that the event took place on London’s South Bank and had been age-restricted to those who were 18 and over, with relevant age verification checks applied to participants. The Panel discussed the Code’s interaction with the law and noted that there was the possibility that the activity had been subject to checks by the local licensing authority. However, the Panel sought to remind producers that age verification checks alone did not preclude an event from having a particular appeal to under-18s and the case would be assessed on its own merits.
The Panel noted that London’s South Bank was a popular destination for all ages, including children, as there were multiple family-targeted tourist attractions nearby and it was a popular area of central London. The Panel discussed the location and presentation of the Gacha Machine and noted that it was clearly visible to passersby, including children, even if they were not taking part in the promotional activity. On this basis, given the prominence and location of the promotional activity, the Panel noted that there was widespread exposure to the event, including for those who were under-18, regardless of the age verification checks in place. In addition to this, the Panel also noted that the promotional activity had several prizes available which could be taken away from the event and would also be viewed by a wider audience.
The Panel discussed the Gacha Machine element of the promotional activity and noted that they were a style of coin-operated vending machine which dispensed toys in plastic balls, usually as part of a collectable set, or sweets. The Panel noted that such vending machines were popular and very common in the UK, often found in arcades, bowling alleys, leisure centres, supermarkets and shopping centres and were particularly popular with under-18s. The Panel considered that given the shape and prize dispensing mechanism, the BuzzBallz Gacha Machine was a giant replica of the vending machines enjoyed by under-18s and would therefore be very familiar to them. The Panel considered that the machine itself would strongly resonate with under-18s who would find a large version of a toy/sweet machine to be very engaging and eye-catching.
The Panel assessed the presentation of the Gacha Machine and noted that it was coloured mostly blue and included text in a large white font outlined with a thick bold blue key line creating a distinct contrast. The Panel noted that there were hearts incorporated into ‘I heart Buzzballz’, lightning bolts with the product’s alcoholic strength by volume, illustrations of two BuzzBallz paired together to resemble a cherry all of which had an emoji-like appearance. The Panel noted that emojis had a broad level of appeal but considered that they could contribute to a level of appeal for under-18s depending on their presentation and inclusion alongside other elements. In addition to the artwork, the machine also incorporated a large depiction of a character that resembled a toy Labubu, which despite jagged teeth, had a friendly toy-like appearance. The Panel noted that Labubu toys had become very popular in the UK across a range of age groups which included some adults, however, the Panel also noted that the toys were very popular with under-18s as well and had become fashion accessories on children’s backpacks. The Panel noted that in a busy area of London where under-18s could clearly see the machine this was highly likely to be eye-catching and enticing for them. The Panel considered that the presentation and combination of these elements all contributed to a level of appeal that would particularly resonate with under-18s. When combined in the context of a Gacha Machine that was widely known to dispense toys, the Panel considered that the appearance of the promotional activity would particularly appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the prizes that could be won by participants, which included BuzzBallz Berry Cherry Limeade drinks, stickers, cash prizes and a stuffed branded toy. The Panel considered the toy which bore a strong resemblance to a Labubu which were monster-like creatures in fluffy suits, with jagged teeth, exaggerated smiles and large pointed ears. The Panel expressed significant concern about alcohol marketing which included a branded soft toy as a prize and stated it was wholly inappropriate for alcohol branding to appear on toy-like items that were known to appeal to children. In addition to this, the Panel also noted that the Labubu could be won as a sticker. In the context of a recent precedent regarding stickers.the Panel noted that the inclusion of stickers would not inherently breach the Code but that by their very nature they did hold a level of appeal for children and would be considered depending on their individual artwork. In this case, the Panel considered that the appearance of a branded toy Labubu on a sticker would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel expressed significant concern about a promotional activity which included a giant replica of a vending machine that was popular with children in the UK that typically dispensed toys or sweets. In the context of an event that was widely visible on London’s South Bank, the Panel stated that it was socially irresponsible to conduct such a promotional activity even if participation was age restricted. The Panel considered that the presentation of the Gacha Machine which included cartoon, emoji-like imagery, thick key lines, contrasting colours and a depiction of a branded toy Labubu further enhanced the particular appeal to under-18s that the promotional activity would have. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the branded toy Labubu and Labubu sticker would also have a particular appeal to under-18s as items that would be taken away from the event and into a home environment. The Panel encouraged the producer and the wider industry to be mindful of the various elements of the promotional activity that had breached the Code in this case. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
The company confirmed it would not run the promotional activity in the same form again.
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 – berries and cherries, 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:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
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
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 drnk 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 Berries and Cherries variant of the drink, the ABV was displayed in small white text at the bottom of the label as ‘alc 7% vol’. The Panel discussed the presentation of the ABV and considered 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 ‘berries and cherries’, 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 berries and cherries flavour of the drink was highly recognisable as a squash flavour. The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the colour scheme, red with green and purple 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 ‘berries and cherries’ 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 red, purple 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:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
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
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:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
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
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:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether 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