Producer:
Lervig
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended).
Complaint:
“The can design features a colourful graphical illustration style representation of a house party, which is funny and quirky, and is likely to have strong appeal to older children and teens. The name “House Party” is also provocatively appealing to under 18’s and is likely a popular activity with many teens to socialise and consume alcohol before they can legally drink in pubs and bars. This is culturally entrenched in youth culture in the UK and would instantly create an appeal and association with this age group”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained it was a craft beer producer based in Stavanger, Norway and therefore operated under some of the most restrictive alcohol laws globally. Since establishing its visual branding in 2016, it had not received any complaints regarding its artwork, product names, or related matters. The company stated that its beers, including “House Party”, were considered long-standing classics, sold domestically and exported to approximately 30 countries, all without any reported issues.
The company stated that over 90% of the product was sold in pubs in the UK, where under-18s were not permitted. The company explained that the beer had been on the market for years without receiving any complaints. Additionally, it noted that the higher price point of its craft beer typically attracted an adult audience as the flavour was bitter, unlike sweeter drinks that could appeal to under-18s.
The company explained that it operated in Norway, exported its beer to numerous countries and had not encountered any concerns regarding the artwork or name. In Norway, the legal age for purchasing alcohol was 18 for beverages up to 22% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and 20 for those exceeding an ABV of 22% to ensure there was no risk of under-18s purchasing alcoholic products. However, the company noted that UK law was less restrictive in that regard and questioned whether changing the beer’s name would address the purported issue or if the focus of regulation should be on the alcohol purchasing laws themselves as it doubted that the beer’s name was the root of underage drinking.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company respectfully disagreed with the Panel’s provisional decision and stated that it did not believe the application of Code rule 3.2(h) had been applied consistently by the Panel as it had been in previous decisions.
The company acknowledged that House Party may resonate with teenagers but agreed with the Panel’s finding that the name did not inherently appeal to under-18s in isolation. The company agreed that this aligned with how ‘house party’ was used in popular culture and the phrase did not create an automatic association with underage activity. The company explained that the name did not include slang, abbreviations, emoji or youth coded language, nor did it romanticise illegal drinking or underage rebellion. The company stated that it was an overgeneralisation to relate ‘house party’ with only under-18s as the phrase appeared in countless adult contexts including in films and podcasts. The product did not include memes, irony or rebellion which the company stated were touchstones of youth marketing. Furthermore, the company noted that many alcoholic drinks on the market referenced party culture, but the packaging of House Party was not paired with any literal illustrations of a party in any case.
The company explained that the visual stye of the packaging was intentionally abstract and artistic; it did not incorporate a narrative or cartoonish or child-like imagery. The design did not include characters or faces, animals, mascots, toys or pop culture references. It also did not include simplified shapes, bold outlines, relatable human figures or humorous juvenile content. The company explained that the limb shapes and distorted structure were symbolic of energy and chaos intended to be an artistic expression typical of the surreal and postmodern visual tradition. The company stated that this genre of art was commonly associated with adult oriented design rather than children’s media. The company explained that ‘visual noise’ was not a trait that was indicative of youth appeal and colourful packaging was common within the craft beer sector. The company stated that the artistic techniques employed intended to reflect a deliberate detachment from realism unlike other character driven packaging designs which had previously been upheld by the Panel. The company compared House Party’s abstract design to other alcohol products that featured clear youth-style imagery, such as cartoon characters, anthropomorphic animals and whimsical scenes. The company stated that House Party’s surrealist artwork was far removed from juvenile cues and was more likely to appeal to adults interested in alternative art. Furthermore, the company stated that ‘House Party’ contrasted sharply with other drinks on the market and expressed concern that an abstract design could be penalised while cartoon imagery had been found to be compliant with the Code. The company stated that the shift toward viewing abstract, artistic designs as appealing to youth risked setting an uncertain precedent which could potentially create disproportionate challenges for producers who use creative designs with no intention to target under-18s.
The company stated that there was no evidence that the packaging would have particular appeal to under-18s as the complaint had been raised as part of the 2025 independent proactive audit of the market, commissioned by the Portman Group. The company explained that in nearly a decade of international distribution it had never received a complaint about House Party regarding underage appeal. The company stated that the drink was stocked by licensed retailers and on-trade venues with age-gating policies and was at the mandatory regulatory standard in other markets with highly restrictive requirements. The company stated that it was therefore disproportionate to remove the product based on speculative appeal with no evidence of real-world appeal to under-18s or misuse. The company stated that in practice, House Party would not appeal to under-18s given its premium price point, its bitter and hoppy taste, its 4% ABV and that it was mainly sold through licensed on-trade venues which did not sell alcohol to under-18s.
The company requested that the Panel reconsider the provisionally upheld decision and dismiss the complaint based on the above points. The company maintained that House Party was clearly intended for adult consumers and did not pose a practical risk of appealing to under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment
During the Panel’s first consideration of the case, it discussed the name ‘House Party’ at length to determine what age demographic the reference would appeal to. The Panel noted that ‘house parties’ were an enduring tradition amongst young people which included those that were under the age of 18. The Panel considered that house parties would strongly resonate with under-18s because there were a limited number of nighttime establishments that would allow them entry which meant that house parties were invariably a popular alternative for those under the legal drinking age. However, as part of this discussion, and its consideration of the provisional decision, the Panel also noted that house parties would strongly resonate with those in an 18-25 age bracket and would have a level of appeal with an older age demographic who would still use the term to describe social gatherings. The Panel discussed the cultural shift that had occurred in recent years whereby house parties were not exclusively drinking occasions for under-18s and considered that it was not possible to state that a house party would particularly resonate with under-18s given their broad appeal to all age groups. Whilst broad appeal was acknowledged, the Panel expressed concern that the term would strongly resonate with those in the 15-25 age bracket which included some under-18s. However, when considering the name alone and the wording of Code rule 3.2(h), it did not consider that the name in isolation would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel noted that it was important to consider the name in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel considered the imagery used on the packaging which included an abstract depiction of a character that had a large building placed on its head, with a body protruding underneath and wavy arms flailed at its side. The Panel also noted that on one side of the can a pair of wavy hairy legs were also included at an angle which reinforced the perception that the artwork was intentionally fantastical and abstract. The Panel discussed the splashes of coloured patches around the central artwork and considered that the design represented visual noise and gave the impression that the party was uncontrolled which was compounded by the streaks of colour emanating from the property, suggestive of loud music. The Panel discussed that an unrestrained house party would resonate with under-18s as youth culture often glamourised wild and loud house parties. As part of its consideration of the provisional decision, the Panel debated the depiction of a chaotic and visually loud party at length in terms of its appeal to a younger age group. The Panel also discussed the company’s response to the provisional decision and acknowledged that while chaotic and wild house parties would resonate with a younger age group, this appeal spanned an age demographic which included adults as well. The Panel discussed Code rule 3.2(h) and its accompanying guidance alongside the company’s response to the provisional decision. The Panel acknowledged the difficulty in applying the test of particular appeal to a chaotic house party concept that would appeal to a younger demographic but not to the extent where it would resonate with under-18s more than it would with young adults. The Panel considered research that it had commissioned from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] and discussed how early adolescence was often a period where appeal for under-18s became more adult-like in nature. As part of this change, the Panel noted that teenage appeal was often based on seeking to emulate the interests of older age groups which made it difficult to apply the test of particular appeal. On this basis, the Panel determined that in such cases assessing the product packaging in its entirety was key to determine whether it could resonate with under-18s in a particular way.
The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the product packaging and noted that it employed a muted colour palette overlaid on a silver metallic background. The Panel considered that the font for the company and product name only appeared in black and was simplistic in its design. When considering the artwork, colour palette and font in combination, the Panel noted that the design was intentionally abstract and stylised in a manner which conveyed a loud and chaotic house party. However, typical design features that would normally be associated with a younger age group, such as identifiable characters, contrasting colours, thick black key lines and youth culture references were notably absent.
The Panel noted the producer’s response that the product was primarily sold in age-restricted pubs in the UK but noted that this still did not represent all sales which meant the product could still be taken into the home environment and that this remained outside of the producer’s control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed, how it tasted and how it was priced.
After careful consideration, the Panel acknowledged that the name ‘House Party’, alongside an abstract depiction of a chaotic and wild house party, would have a level of appeal to a teenage age group. However, the Panel considered that the concept would also strongly resonate with a younger adult demographic. Whilst the Panel noted that this appeal was likely to be particularly strong in the 15-25 age bracket and would therefore capture a level of appeal to some under-18s, the Panel did not consider that this appeal would particularly resonate above and beyond the likely adult appeal. Furthermore, in the context of an abstract, stylised design which used a limited colour palette on a metallic background with black simplistic font, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023