When Lewes-based Beak Brewery, founded by Danny Tapper in 2019, received a complaint about ten of its product range, it was a stressful moment. Following a ruling by the Independent Complaints Panel, six of those products were found to breach Code Rule 3.2(h). which states that a drink, its packaging or promotion should not have a particular appeal to under-18s. For a small brewery, this raised fears of a costly rebrand, reputational damage and major disruption.
Instead of panicking, Danny chose to engage openly with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service in the aftermath of the upheld decisions. Working with us to address the areas of concern identified by the Panel and taking the necessary steps to ensure that the brand’s identity was retained while being mindful of the Code. What could have been a punitive process turned into a collaborative and educational experience.
Danny Tapper, Founder of Beak Brewery, “Without being overly dramatic, when we received that first letter from the Portman Group, it was one of the worst days of my life. It was just the fear of not knowing how this would affect the business we’d worked so hard to build. The complaint was against pretty much our whole product line and so it felt devastating.
“However, when we spoke to the team at the Portman Group, we realised very quickly that they were trying to help us and the whole process felt a lot more balanced and collaborative. We had imagined that in the worst case we would need to change our whole logo and every product but, in the end, it was an amend not a complete overhaul.
“In fact, it was a beneficial process for the brand, it gave us a chance to distil what our brand was about and the complaint was against the products that perhaps weren’t the most reflective of the wider Beak brand and so we had the opportunity to change those and as a result we’ve developed really strong brand guidelines.”
As part of the process, Beak Brewery also used the Portman Group’s free, confidential Advisory Service to help guide future product development and potentially avoid similar issues down the line.
The outcome was positive for Beak Brewery. The necessary changes were made without a complete rebranding, which ultimately benefited the brand. The process allowed the brewery to refine their brand guidelines and distil their brand story. The customer base reacted supportively, and the brewery’s relationship with the Portman Group was strengthened.
Laura Demorais, Director of Regulatory Affairs said, “Complaints don’t need to be a disaster, being on the receiving end of a complaint letter from the Portman Group is not necessarily an indication that a product is in breach of the Code, at that point it’s just the view of the complainant and the start of an investigative process. I’d encourage all producers in this situation to engage with the process in a transparent way and to take the opportunity to explain their brand identity and creative marketing choices in the context of the Code. The Panel will always look at the whole picture which will include the product, the complaint and the producer’s response.
“If a product is found in breach of the Code, our free, confidential Advisory Service is on hand to offer guidance and it’s great to see how this helped Beak Brewery”.
Matt Lambert, Portman Group CEO, “The experience that Beak Brewery had with the Portman Group highlights that our complaints process is fair, transparent, and supportive. As a proactive and pro-growth regulator, the Portman Group always focuses on proportionate regulation to protect consumers and support responsible businesses; and engaging with us in an open and productive way can turn challenges into opportunities. We’re grateful to Beak Brewery for working with us to fully address the issues raised in the complaint and to bring their marketing in line with the rules in the Code of Practice.”
Danny’s final advice to fellow producers: “My advice to others if they get a letter from the Portman Group is not to panic, keep the relationship and the communications positive, it’s very easy to be defensive but being open and transparent is the best way forward.”
- 500 products sampled – 94% of which (471 products) – compliant with the Portman Group’s Code of Practice
- 5% were in breach of the Code, resulting in a packaging redesign or withdrawal from the market
- Two Retailer Alert Bulletins issued – the first since 2023 – asking retailers to stop stocking products
- Producers warned to be careful on potential particular appeal to under-18s or encouraging irresponsible or immoderate consumption
- Producers can utilise our free and confidential advisory service – 99% of requests answered within 48 hours.
Following the launch last year of its first proactive, independent audit of alcohol marketing, the Portman Group – the UK industry marketing regulator and responsibility body – is pleased to announce near universal compliance with its Code of Practice on Naming and Packaging.
Out of 500 products assessed by independent auditors, Zenith Global, only 5% were ultimately judged by the Independent Complaints Panel to be in breach – requiring labelling to either be amended or removed from the GB market.
The decision to become a more proactive regulator was led by a desire to enhance the gold standard regulation that the Portman Group is known for internationally and maintain high standards of industry compliance and as part of its drive as a pro-growth regulator.
The results of the audit showed that the vast majority of the alcohol industry is responsible, with 94% of the products assessed found to be meeting the requirements of the Code, confirming that consumers are protected from exposure to harmful and inappropriate marketing.
As a result of the audit, producers have been warned to be extra vigilant to ensure that products do not potentially have a particular appeal to under-18s or encourage irresponsible or immoderate consumption – as these two rules were breached more often than any other Code rules.
Producers are also encouraged to make use of the Portman Group’s free and confidential advisory service. With a separate report published today highlighting continuing high levels of service in 2024 – with 99% of requests for advice answered within 48 hours – as well as the number of training sessions delivered increasing by a third, highlighting how the Portman Group seeks to proactively support the industry in making sure that responsible marketing is the easy choice.
Portman Group CEO, Matt Lambert said, “The audit has set a benchmark for regulatory compliance and demonstrates the strength of the self-regulatory model. The audit shows 94% compliance, this alongside the ASA’s 96% compliance rate[1] in its Pulse Report for alcohol advertising is excellent news and demonstrates that industry compliance is in good shape across the board. Whilst it’s disappointing to have to issue two Retailer Alert Bulletins, the first since 2023, it shows that the Portman Group is willing to take tough action when producers refuse to engage or to follow our advice to amend products when subject to upheld complaints by the Independent Complaints Panel. All of this work happens in the context of encouraging growth, innovation and creativity whilst ensuring that marketing is responsible and consumers are protected.”
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said, “The work of the Panel overall this year has increased significantly and, with the commitment of the Portman Group to the audit on a biennial basis, this is likely to become the norm. This substantial piece of work demonstrates not only the high rate of compliance of the industry as a whole, but the desire from the vast majority of producers to work with the Portman Group in a constructive way to ensure products are acceptable under the Code. The range of Code rules the Panel considered this year has undergone a shift and reflects a wider range than in previous years. Every case that comes before the Panel helps the industry develop its understanding of how the Code is applied and allows the executive at the Portman Group to continually refine and develop the Code and its Guidance accordingly.”
The full Audit Report is available on the Portman Group website, along with the 2025 Regulatory Report, which reviews all the regulatory affairs of the Portman Group in the past twelve months.
[1] This compliance rate relates to alcoholic products only, the full report references compliance rates for both the alcohol and low/no alcohol sectors.
FAQs – Portman Group Taking Responsibility for Alcohol Regulation 2025 Report:
Q: How many complaints were received in 2025?
A: 96 complaints – 47% from members of public, 38% from Zenith Global Commercial (independent auditor) and 15% from specialist interest or competitors.
Q: How many cases were upheld under the Code?
A: 50% of cases considered by the Panel were upheld and one Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) was issued[2].
Q: How many pieces of advice were given by the Advisory Service?
A: 377 pieces of advice given
Q: How many training sessions on the Codes of Practice were delivered?
A: 24 training sessions were delivered
Q: What were the top three advice requests by Code rule:
A: – 3.2(h) A drink, its packaging or promotion should not 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 tounder-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
– 3.2(j) A drink, its packaging or promotion should not suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
– 3.2(b) A drink, its packaging or promotion should not suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour (though sponsorship of activities which may be dangerous after alcohol consumption, such as motor racing, or yachting are not in themselves in breach of this clause).
FAQs, Portman Group Proactive Audit Report:
Q: What prompted the audit?
A: Previous audits were linked to Code reviews, however, to become a more proactive regulator an audit will now take place every two years and will no longer be linked to a Code review.
Q: Which products were reviewed?
A: 500 random products from the GB market were reviewed. The sample was statistically representative and weighted across all categories of alcohol according to market share.
Q: Will there be follow-up audits?
A: Yes, a proactive audit of the market will take place every two years
[2] Two RABs were issued in the process of the Audit – one was issued during 2025 and one in January 2026. The figures from the Regulatory report only relate to 1st January – December 31st, 2025, during which time there was just one RAB issued.
Retailers have been asked by the Portman Group to stop placing orders for Sip N Drip’s Bubble Yum after 14 April 2026. This comes after the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) found that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s and that the alcoholic nature of the product was not communicated with absolute clarity.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2(h), which states that a drink, its packaging and promotional activity should not have a particular appeal to under-18s. During the Panel’s consideration of the case it also raised Code Rule 3.1 which requires the alcoholic nature of a drink to be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
A copy of the full decision is available here.
The Panel considered the imagery on the label, which included the Sip n Drip brand logo which featured brightly coloured lips, a bubble font with drip effect and a thick black outline, all design elements that can be used in marketing to appeal to under-18s as highlighted by research from the children’s marketing agency, Kids Industries[2] . This, alongside the overall impression of the packaging; a bright, colourful background, fruit imagery, fruit language and confectionary flavour, Bubble Yum, led the Panel to conclude that the product was in breach of Code Rule 3.2(h).
When considering Code Rule 3.1, the Panel concluded that the predominant fruit imagery and brightly coloured, high contrast artwork on the packaging detracted from the alcoholic nature of the product, particularly when combined with the packaging style, which was reminiscent of well-known soft drinks. While the Panel noted that there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging, these were presented in a relatively small font size and not given the prominence required on a product which generally resembled a soft drink. Therefore, the Panel also found the product in breach of Code Rule 3.1.
As the producer, Sip n Drip, did not agree to make the required changes to the product to bring it in line with the Code, a Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) has been issued requesting that retailers do not place further orders for stock after 14 April 2026.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “This product has real potential to cause confusion as to its alcoholic nature. This, combined with its particular appeal to under-18s means it is essential this product is redesigned. We welcomed the company’s initial commitment to make changes to its product design; however, the Panel can only base its decision on the original packaging, which was very much in breach of the Code of Practice. The subsequent lack of engagement from the producer since is deeply disappointing and inevitably led to a RAB being issued.”
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, said: “It is especially disappointing that the producer has failed to reach a satisfactory agreement with us regarding amends to the product after sharing a redesigned label with the Panel. Every company has access to free advice to assist in complying with the Code and in this case the company did not agree to make the required changes to the product, leaving us with no choice but to issue a Retailer Alert Bulletin, only the second one since 2023. We now request that all responsible retailers across the UK stop placing orders for Sip N Drip’s Bubble Yum after 14 April 2026. If any retailer is unsure about the RAB’s application, please contact the Complaints Team for further information.”
A Retailer Alert Bulletin is only issued by the Portman Group following an upheld complaint by the Panel where the producer chooses not to comply with the decision. A RAB requests that retailers cease placing orders for the product three months after the publication date, in this case after the 14 April 2026. For further information please contact complaints@portmangroup.org.uk.
Action by Company:
At the time of publication, the producer did not agree to make the required changes to bring the product in line with the Code following the Panel’s decision. A Retailer Alert Bulletin was therefore issued requesting retailers to stop placing orders for the product after 14 April 2026.
Update 16 February 2026 – The producer has withdrawn Sip n Drip Bubble Yum from the UK market effective from 9 February 2026.
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
[2] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
Producer:
Sip N Drip
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 illustration on the front of the pack features cartoon bubbles, pinky clouds and bubble text “SIP N DRIP” logo reminiscent of the Goosebumps children’s books/TV show series which would provide a particular appeal to under-18s. The plastic bottle in 250ml is synonymous with fruit juices and smoothies, and so in a consumer fridge at home, this would be too easily confused by a child as a product intended for their consumption.”
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
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1. The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and explained that when designing the product, it aimed to ensure that the packaging and marketing of the drink was responsible, transparent and directed only at adult consumers. The company explained that it had taken action to address the concerns raised while maintaining the integrity of the brand.
The company explained that to ensure compliance it had made significant changes to the packaging which included:
• The flavour name amended to ‘Rumburst’;
• ‘Ready to drink cocktail’ was now displayed prominently on the front label as was the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV);
• The drink would only be stocked with alcoholic drinks in a retail setting with 18+ symbols on the label.
The company stated that prior to launch, it had conducted product testing and market research to gather consumer input. The company stated that it had never received a complaint regarding the drink’s logo from a consumer and that consumers had consistently recognised it as being an alcoholic drink. The company explained that consumer feedback had shown that clear alcoholic cues such as the drink’s ABV and a responsible drinking message were important and the company now included these elements across its entire range.
The company explained that the Sip N Drip logo had been in use for several years and was representative of the brand’s identity. The company stated that it was designed to reflect a fun, stylish lifestyle and was not targeted at under-18s. The company explained that the stylised text and dripping lips symbolised enjoyment and were an integral part of the brand. The company did not believe these elements would have particular appeal to under-18s when considered alongside a responsible drinking message and clear alcoholic cues.
The company explained that it had made substantial changes to address the concerns raised and the only element it had retained was the brand logo.
Company response to the provisional decision:
The company acknowledged that the Panel’s provisional decision was against the original packaging, rather than the revised version of the label it had submitted as part of its original response. However, the company stated that the revisions it had made to the packaging reflected its commitment to ensure the brand was directed solely at an adult market while retaining its brand identity.
The company stated that the intended meaning behind the logo and branding had been misunderstood. The company explained that the logo imagery symbolised enjoyment of a flavourful cocktail with the idea that a drink may drip from a person’s lip when savoured. The design was rooted in adult cocktail culture not youth trends and ‘drip’ was a reference to the liquid nature of the drink, rather than a connection to a slang phrase. The colour palette and bold style were consistent with other brands available on the market and used expressive, playful visual imagery to convey energy, nightlife and sociability. The company stated that the logo had been used for many years and had never been associated with, or targeted toward, under-18s.
The company further explained that it had a responsible approach to marketing across social media platforms and within retail premises. This included the requirement that retailer partners adopted a ‘Challenge 25’ policy to avoid underage sales. The company stated that while it respected the complaints process and Panel decision, it
requested that the Panel reconsider the meaning and intent behind the drink’s logo.
The Panel’s assessment
As part of the Panel’s consideration of the company’s first response to the complaint it clarified that its consideration would be solely focused on the packaging that had been subject to complaint, rather than the amended design that the company had described in its response as this was out of scope for the Panel.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the product packaging and whether this would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the company’s first response and noted that its intention was to reflect a fun lifestyle while targeting an adult market. The Panel considered the product and noted that the drink was packaged in a plastic bottle with a light blue screw lid reminiscent of a popular soft drink. The front label incorporated the prominent company logo ‘Sip n Drip’ in dripping, bubble font which was created from the effect of a jar pouring liquid. Behind the logo was a sky filled with pink bubblegum bubbles and below this, a field covered in different fruits including watermelon, blueberries, strawberries, pomegranate, cherries and dragon fruit. The Panel noted that in the centre of the front label was a mouth with full, red lips with further drips coming from the bottom lip and a bubble being blown. In the bottom right corner, the flavour ‘Bubble Yum’ and the product’s ABV appeared in smaller white text and the word ‘cocktails’ appeared on the opposite side in the same font.
The Panel discussed the flavour ‘Bubble Yum’ in the context of a similar case precedent, AU Vodka Bubblegum (2023) and noted that while bubblegum was popular with under-18s as a confectionary item, it was also a well-known product flavour used on products for all ages and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s in isolation. However, in this case, the Panel considered that the fruit imagery on the front of the label was the overwhelming message conveyed by the product and that this combined with the play on words of ‘Bubble Yum’ was likely to appeal to children with the emphasis on sweeter ‘yum’ flavours.
The Panel considered the Sip n Drip logo which was presented in brightly coloured bubble-like font with a drip effect on each letter outlined with a black and white keyline which provided a higher level of colour contrast. The Panel discussed the plain jar above the writing which was designed to appear as though liquid was spilling out of it to create the name Sip n Drip. The Panel considered that the drip effect presentation of the logo appeared horror-like in a cartoon style and the contrasting outlines on the brightly coloured font with cartoon pink clouds and bubble imagery in the background was likely to particularly appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the name Sip n Drip and also noted that the term ‘drip’ was used by a younger generation to mean stylish. Whilst the term was not problematic in and of itself, the Panel considered that in combination with the rest of the packaging artwork the name would also increase the level of appeal to an under-18 demographic.
The Panel discussed the presentation and prominence of the brightly coloured lips on the front of the label and noted that the lips were also presented in a thick black keyline with the red lips and white teeth providing a high contrast effect. The Panel considered the drips from the red of the lips and the pink bubble being blown from the mouth which reinforced the product’s focus on bubblegum.
The Panel considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries1 and discussed the section which highlighted that playful names and logos presented in bright colours, with chunky cartoon-like font, high contrasting colours and thick black outlines were features that were likely to be used in marketing which would appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that all of these elements were incorporated on Bubble Yum and considered that the overall impression did have a particular appeal to under-18s.
As part of the Panel’s consideration of the company’s response to the provisional decision, the Panel reiterated that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not its purpose as a Panel. The Panel clarified that its decision would only be in regard to the packaging that was subject to complaint but noted the willingness of the company to work with the Advisory Service to make amends to the label. The Panel also acknowledged the responsible retailing practices outlined in the company’s second response but explained that retailer placement and age verification policies did not inform whether packaging was in breach of the Code. The Panel reminded producers that a drink could be seen by a wider audience outside of a retail environment and therefore compliance with the Code was based on the merits of the case and how the packaging would be perceived by the average consumer.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed the company’s request in its provisional decision response for the Panel to reconsider its decision relating to the brand logo. The Panel discussed the detailed view it had provided in the provisional decision regarding the overall impression conveyed by the product’s design and concluded that the points in the provisional decision still applied regarding the overall packaging design, the flavour ‘Bubble Yum’ and the presentation of the Sip n Drip logo. While the Panel accepted the company’s explanation regarding its intention behind the logo, the Panel stated that its decision was based on the design appearance of the product and how this would be perceived by the average consumer, as opposed to the intent behind the design.
On that basis, the Panel reiterated that the brightly coloured lips, bubble-writing font, high contrast colours, drip effect presentation and thick black outline meant that the Sip n Drip logo had a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging design, which compromised of a bright colourful background, prominent fruit imagery, fruit language and a confectionary flavour presented as ‘Bubble Yum’ did have a particular appeal to under-18s alongside the Sip n Drip logo which also had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
During the Panel’s discussion of whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, it also raised whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity for consideration. The Panel considered the shape and size of the bottle which incorporated a light blue screw cap lid and noted that it was very similar to packaging used for fruit juice drinks. The Panel stated that any alcoholic drink which used packaging more commonly associated with a soft drink needed to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity to minimise the potential for consumer confusion.
The Panel then assessed the front label of Sip n Drip and noted that the flavour Bubble Yum and ABV of the product were present in the bottom right-hand corner of the label in small white text. However, the Panel also noted that the text was superimposed onto fruit imagery and in the case of the ABV was very difficult to read over the image of blueberries. In addition to this, the Panel considered that both the ABV and the word ‘cocktail’ were presented in the smallest font on the front label and in the context of a brightly coloured, high contrast label with a significant amount of fruit imagery, the alcoholic cues did not stand out.
The Panel discussed the presentation of the jar of liquid on the front of the label which was angled to pour liquid to form the Sip n Drip logo with drip-effect. The Panel considered that the choice of a jar, instead of glassware that was commonly associated with alcohol, increased the likelihood of potential consumer confusion as another negative cue that detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered the back label of the product and noted that the ingredient list included the words cocktail and rumpunch alongside other recognisable alcoholic descriptors including vodka, rum and cognac. However, the Panel noted that in the list of ingredients, the alcoholic descriptors were embedded further in the text with the fruit ingredients given the most prominence first. While not required, the Panel also noted that the back label did not include best practice labelling elements such as the product’s unit content or the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines which would typically provide further positive alcohol cues on pack.
With the above points in mind, the Panel concluded that the predominant fruit imagery and brightly coloured, high contrast artwork on the packaging detracted from the alcoholic nature of the product, particularly when combined with the packaging style, which was reminiscent of a well-known soft drink. While the Panel noted that there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging, these were presented in a relatively small font size and not given the prominence required on a product which resembled a soft drink. Therefore, on balance, the Panel also found the product in breach of rule 3.1.
The Panel welcomed the company’s intent to make changes to the product and encouraged the company to engage with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service.
Action by Company:
Producer action – The producer did not agree to make the required changes to bring the product in line with the Code. A Retailer Alert Bulletin was therefore issued requesting retailers to stop placing orders for the product after 14 April 2026.
Update 16 February 2026 – The producer has withdrawn Sip n Drip Bubble Yum from the UK market effective from 9 February 2026.
1 Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
- Nearly a quarter (24%) of alcohol drinkers who have tried low and no alcohol alternatives said that these products have reduced their alcohol consumption.
- More than a third (35%) of UK adults consume up to 5 units of alcohol per week.
- UK adults are more worried about British teenagers vaping, use of illicit drugs and social media than about alcohol and alcohol alternatives.
The Portman Group’s eighth annual survey on low and no alcohol in partnership with YouGov shows that 86% of UK adults either abstain from alcohol or drink within Chief Medical Officer low risk drinking guidelines (up to 14 units per week), with a significant portion of the population embracing low and no alcohol alternatives.
The survey found that 53% of UK adults consume 14 units of alcohol or less per week which includes 35% of adults who are drinking 5 units or less per week. A third of adults (33%) do not drink alcohol at all. Only 11% of adults exceed the Chief Medical Officer’s low risk guidelines.
Among UK adults who drink alcohol, 36% consume low and no alcohol products either regularly or occasionally (i.e. ‘semi-regularly’ which encompasses both regular and occasional drinkers). Alcohol alternatives continue to be more popular with younger adults, with 43% of 18-24 year olds and 40% of 35-44 year olds consuming them semi-regularly, but there is an upward trend in those aged 55+, with 35% also drinking alcohol alternatives semi-regularly, compared to 25% in 2022*
The results tell us that – for the eighth year in a row – driving home safely from social events remains the top reason for choosing low and no alcohol products (35%), followed by taking part in social activities without drinking excessively (24%) – highlighting how these products support responsible drinking behaviours and help avoid harms such as drink driving and binge drinking.
Nearly a quarter (24%) ** of current alcohol drinkers who have tried low/no alcohol alternatives report that these products have helped reduce their alcohol consumption – once again highlighting how consumers are actively using alcohol alternatives as tools for moderation.
For the first time, the survey asked UK adults at what age they first tried a low or no alcohol alternative. The results showed that only 7% of adults who have tried low and no alcohol alternatives first tried them before the age of 18 – 4% between 16-17 and 3% aged 15 and under. Whilst the Government is considering a ban on the sale of alcohol alternatives to under-18s, the industry has been proactive in ensuring the Challenge 25 is implemented across shops and bars to prevent sales to minors. Portman Group guidance also ensures these products are marketed responsibly and only to adults.
The results also show that concerns around teenage alcohol drinking (40%) are much lower compared to concern about teenage use of illicit drugs or vaping (64%), social media use (62%), self-harm (49%), energy drinks (46%), whilst just 9% of adults are concerned about teenagers drinking low and no alcohol alternatives.
This year’s findings underscore a continued shift towards moderate drinking and positive attitudes to low and no alcohol alternatives across all age groups.
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, said: “These results serve to demonstrate that a large proportion of UK consumers continue to drink moderately and that low and no products help them to do this. It is for this reason we at the Portman Group continue to champion and support this important and growing sector.
“These figures also help us to understand underage drinking of low and no alcohol products and demonstrate that the industry is proactive in ensuring these products are marketed and sold as alcohol alternatives for adults only.
“It’s good news that UK adults are embracing moderate drinking and low and no alcohol options like never before, showing these products are now a mainstream choice helping people to drink responsibly while still enjoying social occasions.”
* Wording in the survey has changed since 2022, previously worded as ‘often’ and ‘sometimes’ rather than ‘regularly’ and ‘occasionally’.
** Based on removing those who did not drink alcohol before first trying a low/no alternative.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2138 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 24th – 25th November 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).
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
A complaint against Lervig’s House Party IPA has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2(h), whereby 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.
After a provisional decision by the Panel to uphold the complaint, the producer appealed on the grounds that the name House Party did not create an automatic association with under-18s, that the packaging did not include the normal touchstones of youth marketing, and that the phrase ‘house party’ appeared in countless adult contexts. The design was intentionally abstract and did not include any of the fonts or imagery that would normally appeal to under-18s.
The Panel acknowledged that the name ‘House Party’, alongside an abstract depiction of a chaotic and wild house party, would have a certain amount of appeal to a teenage age group but agreed that the concept would also strongly resonate with a younger adult demographic. This, alongside an abstract, stylised design with a limited colour palette with a simplistic font, meant 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).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “It is very unusual that the Panel overturn a provisional decision, however, this case shows the benefits of producers engaging with the complaints process and with the Panel. This also shows the importance of our two-step process in ensuring we have considered and fully discussed all factors before making a full and final decision.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Retailers have been asked by The Portman Group to stop placing orders for Liquor Zaar’s O.J Premium Strong Beer after the 15 December 2025, after the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) found that the product placed undue emphasis on its higher alcoholic strength, and that that the packaging, which contained more than 4 units of alcohol, indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns about potential Code breaches of Code Rule 3.2 (a), which states that a drink should not give higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis, and Code Rule 3.2 (f), whereby a drink should not encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption.
In addition the Panel considered whether the cartoon image of an athletically built man with large muscular biceps could suggest that the drink could enhance physical capabilities, which would have been a breach of Code Rule 3.2 (j) but concluded there was nothing on the packaging to sufficiently link the image to consumption of the drink and this part of the complaint was not upheld.
A copy of the full decision is available here.
The Panel noted that whilst it was important to ensure a drink’s strength was communicated factually, the higher strength should not be unduly emphasised. The Panel considered that the combination of multiple strength cues, including disproportionately large fonts and repeated overt presentation of the drink’s ABV, alongside imagery representing physical strength, placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength. In this case, the Panel noted that some consumers would be particularly vulnerable to marketing where the higher alcoholic strength of a drink was presented as a virtue and expressed significant concern regarding its presentation. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rule 3.2(a).
Looking at whether the drink encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption, the Panel noted that as the product contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a single serve, non-resealable container, mitigating factors such as a ‘share’ message or per serve information should have been included on the packaging. In the absence of this information, the Panel considered that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption, as such, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Despite being given several opportunities to submit a response to the Panel about this complaint, the company did not respond to any correspondence relating to this matter. It is unacceptable for an alcoholic product to market its higher alcoholic strength as the primary reason for purchase, particularly when it was also found to encourage immoderate consumption. The Code is explicitly clear that alcohol marketing should not particularly appeal to those who are vulnerable. During consideration, the Panel expressed significant concern about the packaging of O.J Premium Strong Beer and concluded that it had not been marketed in a socially responsible manner.”
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, said: “This is the first Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) the Portman Group has issued since 2023. It is particularly disappointing that the producer refused to engage with the process or take advice from our free advisory service. The Portman Group will not hesitate to enforce the Panel’s decision and request that all responsible retailers across the UK stop placing orders for O.J Premium Strong Beer after the 15 December 2025. If any retailer is unsure about the RAB’s application, please contact the Complaints Team for further information.”
A Retailer Alert Bulletin is only issued by the Portman Group following an upheld complaint by the Panel where the producer chooses not to comply with the decision. A RAB requests that retailers cease placing orders for the product three months after the publication date, in this case after the 15 December 2025. For further information please contact complaints@portmangroup.org.uk.
You can see the Retailer Alert Bulletin here: OJ RAB pdf.
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Liquor Zaar
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“Overt emphasis given to the higher alcoholic strength (4.4 units). “”Strong”” appears on the can multiple times, as does “”Imported”” and “”8.5%””, alongside the cartoon image of a man flexing his ‘strong’ muscles”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(a) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company did not submit a response to the complaint.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel expressed its disappointment that the producer had not responded to any contact made by the Code Secretariat to discuss the complaint.
3.2(a)
The Panel discussed whether the packaging of O.J Premium Strong Beer placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect. The Panel noted that the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of the drink was 8.5% which was higher than average for the category. Therefore, the Panel considered that it was important that the drink’s strength was communicated on its packaging in a factual and neutral way so that consumers could make an informed decision about consumption given the higher alcoholic strength of the beer. The Panel discussed the balance that needed to be achieved between factually communicating a drink’s higher alcoholic strength while not placing undue emphasis on its higher strength or intoxicating effect.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the packaging to consider how the strength of the drink was presented. The Panel noted several strength cues on the label, including the word ‘strong’ which appeared in large, bold, white text several times on the can. The Panel considered that the text stood out prominently against the rest of the minimalistic, predominantly black and grey label. Alongside this, the drink’s ABV was presented as ‘8.5% alc vol’ several times on the front, back and side of the can in a bold white font. In several places on the label, the presentation of ‘8’ was in a notably larger font than the surrounding text and ‘strong’ had been positioned next to it. While the Panel acknowledged that ‘O.J’ was the largest font on the can, the size used for the ‘8’ made it a dominant feature on the label and its positioning next to ‘strong’ heavily emphasised the beer’s strength. This was reinforced by the number of times these elements were repeated around the label which the Panel considered went beyond factual communication of the drink’s strength. Instead, the Panel considered that the size, repetition and prominence of the product’s strength, and repeated pairing with the word ‘strong’, directly used the drink’s higher alcoholic strength as a marketing feature designed to appeal to consumers on this basis.
The Panel then considered the wider packaging to determine how these elements contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. The Panel noted that the label included a cartoon-style image of a man, who had an athletic build and large muscular arms. The Panel noted that the arms of the man were disproportionately large compared to the rest of his body and were noticeably wider than the man’s waist for contrast. The Panel noted that the character was presented as flexing one of his arms in order to draw attention to his bulged bicep. The Panel considered that the depiction of the man was clearly intended to represent a person
who was strong and powerful. The Panel considered that in the context of the wider packaging, the image of the man was a further cue that the drink was being marketed on its strength and reinforced the perception that the beer was particularly strong.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel considered that the combination of these elements meant that undue emphasis had been placed on the higher alcoholic strength of the beer to the point where it had been used as a marketing technique to appeal to consumers based on strength and went beyond factual communication. Therefore, the Panel considered that the combination of multiple strength cues, including disproportionately large fonts and repeated overt presentation of the drink’s ABV, alongside imagery representing physical strength, placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).
The Panel considered that some consumers would be particularly vulnerable to such marketing where the higher alcoholic strength of a drink was presented as a virtue and marketed as the primary reason to purchase the drink. The Panel was mindful that clause 1.1 of the Code of Practice explicitly stipulated that marketing should not particularly appeal to those who are vulnerable and expressed significant concern that the product had not been marketed in a socially responsible manner.
During research of the case, the Chair also noted that the company’s accompanying marketing on social media platforms marketed on the basis that the product’s higher alcoholic strength was a virtue, a challenge and a primary reason to purchase the product. Therefore, the Chair also requested that the Code Secretariat refer the product’s online marketing to the Advertising Standards Authority for investigation.
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the drink encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(f) which stated that a single serve non-resealable container should not contain more than four units of alcohol unless the packaging incorporated mitigating factors so as not to indirectly encourage immoderate consumption. The Panel discussed YouGov polling commissioned in 20141 which showed that the large majority of adults polled believed that a 500ml can of beer was designed for the contents to be consumed by one person in one sitting. The Panel noted that this did not inherently mean that a 500ml can which contained more than four units of alcohol would automatically breach Code rule 3.2(f) and that consideration would be given to mitigating factors included on pack. The Panel noted that such mitigating factors should be commensurate with the number of units above four in the single-serve container and could feature responsible drinking messaging, a ‘share’ message or a per-serve recommendation.
The Panel noted that O.J Premium Strong Beer contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a non-resealable single serve 500ml can. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it included some best practice elements to communicate alcohol health-related information such as a pregnancy warning logo and the product’s unit content information. However, for a higher than average strength product, the Panel noted that there was no inclusion of the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking guidelines, nor was there was any information to communicate that the drink should be shared between multiple people or consumed over more than one sitting. Therefore, the Panel considered that as the product contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a single serve, non-resealable container, mitigating factors such as a ‘share’ message or per serve information should have been included on the packaging. In the absence of this information, the Panel considered that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(j)
During discussion, the Panel raised Code rule 3.2(j) to determine whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could enhance physical capabilities. The Panel considered the inclusion of an image of a muscular and athletic person on the packaging and whether this suggested that by consuming the beer, a person may experience enhanced physical capabilities. The Panel discussed the assessment of the imagery in the context of Code rule 3.2(a) and noted it had been a contributing factor in conveying the impression that the drink was particularly strong. The Panel noted that the man was athletically built with large muscular biceps which suggested that he was a strong person in good physical condition. However, the Panel considered that this alone did not suggest that consumption of the drink could help a consumer achieve a similar physique. With that in mind, the Panel considered the rest of the label and noted that there was nothing else which implied that consumption of the drink could impart strength to a consumer or help them achieve a greater level of fitness. The Panel considered that while the person depicted was athletic and strong, there was nothing on the packaging that sufficiently linked the image with consumption of the drink. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not suggest the drink could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
The producer did not engage with the complaints process and a Retailer Alert Bulletin was issued.
1 YouGov Polling Results for Drink Sizes 2014; commissioned by the Portman Group
Producer:
Aldi Stores
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“The Reprobates’ seems to glamourise illegal behaviour with its name, accompanied by a mugshot image. The bottle neck also carries an image of a cross-bar gate – an image clearly associated with counting days in prison.
The adult male depicted does not clearly appear to be over the age of 25 and is more likely around 18-20 years of age”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(i)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that The Reprobates Sparkling Wine was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice.
The company explained that the term ‘reprobates’ was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The company stated that the term ‘reprobates’ was similar to ‘rascal,’ a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfie’s Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that ‘reprobates’ created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the alcohol industry.
The company explained that the imagery used on the packaging was an adult male with a neutral expression standing still and did not create any association with bravado or dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The image was representative of a caricature, depicting an everyday working-class man in 1920s dress which at most could be seen to be a ‘rascal’. The company explained that the historical context of the image depicted what would have been considered a reprobate in the 1920s which was important as that was not necessarily what would be considered a reprobate today, much less a criminal. The company refuted that the image was a ‘mugshot’ as there were no visual cues suggesting that was the case and it was simply a representation of an everyday working-class adult male from the 1920s holding a sign with the product name superimposed over it. The company explained that the image was created using artificial intelligence (AI) and was not a real photo nor a mugshot and there was no suggestion that the character was intoxicated.
The company explained that the written and visual communication on the packaging was adult in nature and that it understood that Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like. The company stated that it did not believe that the character looked under-25. The character was clearly adult with a strong bone structure, broad shoulders and while clean shaven, there were no visual clues that suggested he was younger. Furthermore, the image did not represent an individual that under-18s would find aspirational, particularly given the dated and monotone nature of the image.
The company stated that the historical nature of the image was important to consider, as someone in old fashion dress was more likely to be associated with the style of an older generation. This was in contrast to how young adults were typically depicted today with an emphasis on being casual, trendy and youthful; a standard the character did not meet. The company stated that age recognition relied on visual cues such as clothing, hairstyle and overall demeanour and the cues on the packaging were vastly different to those of today. As such, consumers would not consider the image to be a young man under 25 and instead would associate the image with a representation of an adult male from a bygone era.
The company stated it was committed to the responsible retail of alcohol and complied with alcohol marketing guidelines. The products were exclusively sold in Aldi stores, ensuring they were not marketed to under-18s and the company employed a challenge 25 policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent underage sales.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company stated that it was disappointed with the Panel’s provisional decision as there were similar products on the market which could be interpreted as celebrating criminal activity.
The company disagreed with the Panel’s assertion that the tally marks on the neck of the bottle represented years of a custodial sentence and the implication that this conveyed a serious crime had been committed. Instead, the company highlighted that the tally marks, which were placed on the cap of the bottle’s neck, were far enough removed from the main image on the bottle which meant that it was unlikely consumers would infer an association between the tally marks and what the Panel had inferred was a ‘mugshot’. Furthermore, the company stated that even if the tally marks did represent a custodial sentence, such marks would more commonly represent days, rather than years, which the Panel had not considered. As such, the company disagreed with the Panel’s findings that the tally marks indicated a serious crime had been committed and subsequently warranted a long prison sentence. The company highlighted that in this context, the tally marks were more likely to represent a number of days which was indicative of a minor misdemeanour. The company stated that this interpretation aligned with the meaning of the name ‘Reprobate,’ which the Panel had deemed acceptable in its provisional decision. The company argued that even if the tally marks on the packaging had represented months or years, this still did not necessarily indicate a serious crime had been committed in modern society as crimes such as vagrancy and poaching had historically carried custodial sentences.
The company reiterated that other features of the packaging were consistent with similar brands. The company stated that if the Panel chose to uphold the complaint it presumed that the removal of the tally lines would be enough to ensure compliance with the Code. Nonetheless, the company requested the Panel to reconsider its decision.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(b)
The Panel discussed whether the drink’s packaging created any association with illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name, ‘The Reprobates’, to determine how the term reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producer’s response that ‘reprobate’ was intended to be akin to ‘rascal’, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, ‘reprobate’ was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that ‘reprobate’ could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.
The Panel discussed the front label, which included a photo of a man dressed in 1930s attire holding up a board which read ‘The Reprobates’. The Panel considered the positioning of the man in the photo, staring straight ahead while holding a board, which did appear to be very similar to the classic ‘mug shot’ position. This interpretation was compounded by the serious expression and rigid stance the character maintained as opposed to how one might usually pose for a photograph with a smile and relaxed posture. Furthermore, directly above the image on the neck of the bottle was the inclusion of numerous lines presented as a tally which was designed to mimic the appearance of carvings. The Panel considered that tallies were often used in the context of a prisoner counting the number of years they had served in prison, typically crudely etched onto a wall or other surface. The Panel noted that such tallies were synonymous with prisoners who were serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes as a way to keep track of passing time.
The Panel considered the name ‘The Reprobates’ within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count and considered that a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.
The Panel considered the presentation of the product and noted from the producer’s response that the imagery had no contemporary relevance. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that it advised against glamourising crime which linked to contemporary illegal behaviour. The Panel further noted that guidance stated that the severity of crime depicted or referenced could also impact how ‘illegal behaviour’ may be applied under the Code by the Panel.
The Panel carefully considered the cumulative impact of how criminal behaviour was portrayed on the product packaging and noted that it did not glamourise contemporary illegal behaviour. However, the Panel acknowledged that while contemporary crime was not necessarily glamourised by the packaging, a clear and dominant association with illegal behaviour had been created through the name and imagery which had resulted in what appeared to be a fairly lengthy prison sentence, therefore inferring that a serious crime had been committed.
The Panel’s consideration of the company’s response to the provisional decision
The Panel considered the company’s response carefully and noted that it primarily focused on other producer marketing in the category and the assertion that the tally marks did not represent a custodial sentence, and that even if they were construed as such, did not necessarily suggest that a serious crime had been committed.
The Panel discussed the company’s concerns regarding similar products which were available in the UK market and the assumption that these were approved by the Portman Group. The Panel stated that it could only consider the merits of the case subject to complaint and highlighted that it had not made a formal decision regarding other products that the company had raised in its response. As the final arbiter of the Code, the Panel would only consider the case against The Reprobates Sparkling Wine and could not provide advice on any changes that may be required to comply with its decision as this was the responsibility of the Portman Group’s Advisory Service.
The Panel discussed the company’s response regarding the product packaging and noted that the company had concluded that ‘the name and image on the bottle had been deemed acceptable by the Portman Group’ which had led it to focus its response on the tally marks which it perceived had tipped the balance of compliance and resulted in an upheld complaint. However, the Panel considered that this fundamentally did not address the concerns it had raised in terms of the overall impression conveyed by the product and noted that the provisional decision did not explicitly state that the tally marks were the only problematic element on the packaging. The Panel highlighted that the provisional decision had stated that the name ‘The Reprobates’ within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count, and a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles, reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.
In addition to this, the Panel noted that the company had denied that the tally marks were intended to refer to a custodial sentence but equally noted that it had not offered any explanation as to what they were intended to represent nor why they had been included on the packaging.
The Panel then considered the latter half of the company’s response which stated that even if the tally lines were representative of a custodial sentence, a consumer would not interpret them in such a way as they were detached from the main imagery on the label. The Panel discussed this point and considered that as the tally marks and mugshot style image were in the same field of vision, an average consumer would make the brand narrative link between an image of a person being incarcerated and a symbol of passing time in prison; both directly linking to criminal behaviour. The Panel considered that this was the dominant impression conveyed in the absence of any other story-telling cues on pack.
Finally, the Panel then considered the company’s response that if the tally lines were representative of a prison sentence the lines did not necessarily infer a serious crime had been committed as they could represent days or weeks in line with a sentence for a minor misdemeanour which was in keeping with the name ‘The Reprobates’. Taking into account the points made above, the Panel reiterated that the tally lines compounded the impression that the character, who was presented in a mug shot style image, had been convicted of a crime and was counting down the time until release or a period of time served in prison. Therefore, regardless of the specific period conveyed, the impression was still one that the character had been convicted of a crime that was serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s name, a mugshot style image and number tally which inferred that a sufficiently serious, if unspecified, crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, created a direct and dominant association with illegal behaviour. The Panel considered that as there was no other brand narrative to contradict these points, or any alternative explanation offered by the company, it was reasonable to conclude that a consumer would interpret the labelling in this manner. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(i)
The Panel considered whether the packaging featured in a significant role an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age, as raised by the complainant. The Panel first assessed the image of the man and noted that while his age appeared to be somewhat indeterminate, the historical clothing did mean that he was presented in a mature manner. The Panel considered that the spirit of Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like and that this had been applied by the Panel in previous cases considered under the Code. With that in mind, the Panel considered that the character’s clothing was distinctly different from contemporary fashionable attire and that the character’s style was largely obscured by the presentation of the label. The Panel considered that there was nothing else on the packaging that referenced modern youth culture and further determined that the man was not presented in a way that would be particularly aspirational to under-18s. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not incorporate an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age and accordingly the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Action by Company:
Product discontinued