Producer:
Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.
Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.
When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.
As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:
- 2(a) was raised on the ground that ‘Bright, bold and hits like a bass drop’ potentially placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating nature of a drink;
- 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ for potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;
- 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;
- 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.
Decision:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
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
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether th drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Electric Blue Raspberry’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.
The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(a)
The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the text ‘bright, bold and hits like a bass drop’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel noted that the line ‘hits like a bass drop’ was an idiom used to describe a sudden, powerful, overwhelming emotion or physical sensation. It mirrored electronic dance music, where a bass drop referred to a building section of a composition, which would then give way to a bass driven, high energy chorus. Outside of music, it described a feeling that is felt as well as heard, with similarities to how sub-bass frequencies would be experienced. With that in mind, the Panel discussed how the phrase would likely be understood by consumers in the context of an alcoholic drink. As the phrase did not clarify that the line linked to the flavour of the drink, the Panel considered that the average consumer would interpret it as relating to the intoxicating effect of the alcohol when used in the context of an alcoholic drink. The Panel discussed the two elements of the Code rule and noted that a product did not necessarily have to be of higher alcoholic strength within its category to place undue emphasis on its intoxicating effect. The Panel expressed concern that the use of the verb ‘hit’ suggested that the alcohol would have an impact and that this powerful effect from the alcohol was akin to experiencing a bass drop due to its alcoholic nature.
The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s the wild spirit that hits with a sweet-sour kick’. The Panel reiterated that any emotive language such as ‘kick’ or ‘hit’ which could be linked to emphasising the strength or intoxicating effect of the alcohol should be used with caution. However, in this specific instance, the Panel noted that the line made clear that it specifically related to the sweet-sour flavour profile. With that in mind, the Panel considered that this was in direct contrast to the text ‘hits like a bass drop’ which did not reference flavour in the same manner and instead created a link to the intoxicating effect of the alcohol. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that without a clarifying statement, the line ‘hits like a bass drop’ went beyond a factual communication and placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the drink. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.
During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.
The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.
On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.
The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright blue colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, blue raspberry. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, blue raspberry, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.
The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.
In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.
The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.
The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.
The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.
In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.
The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
Producer:
Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.
Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.
When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.
As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:
- 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;
- 2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;
- 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ and ‘you’re only one sip away from texting your ex’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.
Decision:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
3.2(b) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
NOT UPHELD
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought. The company stated that ‘rebel’ reinforced free thinking and did not in any way suggest laws should be broken, particularly as there was no context to suggest this meaning. The company stated that the Panel had previously considered that “rascal” and “reprobate” were acceptable and stated that ‘rebel’ should be considered in the same ilk.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Red Cherry Rebel’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.
The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(b)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel carefully assessed the packaging and noted that ‘rule breakers’, which was raised as a point of concern by the complainant, did not appear on the label. The Panel clarified that this phrase therefore would not form part of its considerations under Code rule 3.2(b).
The Panel then considered the drink’s name ‘Red Cherry Rebel’ and noted that the word ‘rebel’ appeared on both the front and back label prominently. The Panel discussed the meaning of rebel and noted that it tended to refer to a person that resisted convention or control. The Panel considered that to be a ‘rebel’ or to ‘rebel’ against an action did not necessarily mean that rules or laws would be broken, nor did it mean that such actions would result in antisocial behaviour though this could be the case in some contexts. The Panel stated that ‘rebel’ was often used to refer to independent thinkers or those who went against established convention. This type of person could be found in all walks of life and was not exclusively a reference to someone that engaged in criminal behaviour. The Panel then considered similar case precedents, where the use of the words ‘rebel’, ‘rascal’ and ‘reprobate’ were all found to be acceptable where there was no other association with anti-social or illegal behaviour. With that in mind, the Panel assessed the label in its entirety and noted there was nothing else on the packaging which related to criminal activity or suggested that ‘rebel’ was linked to law breaking. As that was the case, the Panel concluded that ‘rebel’ did not create an association with anti-social or illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.
During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.
The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.
On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.
The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright red colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, cherry. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, cherry, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.
The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.
In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.
The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.
The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.
The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.
In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.
The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.
The Panel then assessed the rest of the label which included the text ‘You’re only one sip away from texting your ex’. The Panel discussed that ‘texting an ex’ described an act of reaching out to a former partner after consuming alcohol as a result of lowered inhibitions. The Panel considered that ‘texting an ex’ was often implied to require bravery through inflated confidence after alcohol consumption and was reinforced by the preceding line ‘You’re only one sip away’ which directly linked a change in behaviour to alcohol consumption.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the lines ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ and ‘You’re only one sip away from texting your ex’ both directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
Producer:
Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.
Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.
When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.
As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:
- 2(f): This was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Zesty, fizzy and oh so tasty, made for pre-drinks, big laughs and nights that could go anywhere’ for potentially encouraging irresponsible consumption;
- 2(g): This was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ for potentially encouraging rapid/down in one consumption;
- 2(j): This was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for potentially suggesting a change in mood and behaviour.
Decision:
Code paragraph 3.1. The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(g) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Zesty, fizzy and oh so tasty, made for pre-drinks, big laughs and nights that could go anywhere’ were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Wicked Green Apple’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.
The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.
During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.
The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.
In addition to this, the Panel considered that this suggestion was exacerbated in the context of the line ‘nights that could go anywhere’ which further insinuated that the alcohol would play a transformative role in the social success of an evening.
On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ and ‘Zesty, fizzy and oh so tasty, made for pre-drinks, big laughs and nights that could go anywhere’ for consideration.
The Panel discussed the phrase ‘pre-drinks’ and considered that the phrase was synonymous with the drinking habits of those who were in the 18-25 age bracket with less disposable income and referred to the practice of individuals consuming as much alcohol as possible at home to avoid paying for more expensive drinks in the on-trade. The Panel noted that this resulted in a consumption style that was based on consuming a high volume of alcohol in a short space of time rather than factoring in how to moderate alcohol consumption and drink responsibly. A person therefore was often likely to drink more than they would have done otherwise in order to maximise the cost saving. The Panel considered that ‘pre-drinks’ was so synonymous with an irresponsible style of alcohol consumption it was fundamentally inappropriate to include the line in any alcohol marketing. The Panel sought to remind the industry that it was inherently irresponsible to encourage a drinking-style designed for individuals to drink as much as possible in a short space of time to save money. Furthermore, the Panel considered that due to the nature of ‘pre-drinks’ the phrase also created an indirect association with binge-drinking and drunkenness as a result of drinking to excess.
The Panel assessed the rest of the label which included the text ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.
The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright green colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, green apple. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, green apple, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.
The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.
In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.
The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. As part of the Panel’s consideration of the company’s response to the provisional decision, the Panel noted the company’s point that apple was a fairly common alcoholic drink flavour. The Panel considered that while the apple flavour was not inherently problematic, a fruit flavour would still contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.
The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.
The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.
In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(g)
The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.
The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
Producer:
Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.
Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.
When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.
As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:
- 2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘Made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption;
- 2(g) was raised on the grounds ‘Shoot it straight’ potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption;
- 2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1. The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(e). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(g). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the soft drink flavour ‘Cola Kick’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.
The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.
During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.
The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.
On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’, ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ and ‘made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel discussed the four lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, colours and soft drink flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.
The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a dark brown colour, synonymous with cola. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, in front of a cola splash and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, cola. The cactus and cola liquid imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, cola, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.
The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.
In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and a cola splash in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.
The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a flavour that was typically associated with a soft drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, soft drink flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.
The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.
The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.
In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.
The Panel discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.
The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the line ‘Made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’. The Panel recapped that in its consideration under Code rule 3.2(f) ‘made for chaos’ had been found to contribute to the impression that the drink was a catalyst for a chaotic and unrestrained evening which encouraged irresponsible consumption. The Panel considered that while the lines created a link with irresponsible consumption, they also inferred that chaotic and unpredictable situations would be the result of a behaviour change caused by consumption of the product. This was further compounded by ‘guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’, an idiom for injecting momentum into an otherwise slow-moving dancefloor which further emphasised that consumption of the drink would change a person’s behaviour, making them livelier and more energetic.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the lines ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ and ‘made for chaos and guaranteed to wake up the dancefloor’ both directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
Producer:
Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd t/a Fortitude Drinks UK
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am writing to make a formal complaint about Cactus Jack’s Schnapps. Last week in my local Iceland, my son who is 15 asked if we could buy a bottle, thinking it was a soft drink. I was absolutely horrified to see it was a 15% ABV alcoholic schnapps. You can see it here https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/cactus-jacks-wicked-green-apple-sour-schnapps-70cl/102239.html It’s obvious why he made this mistake. The bottle has a cartoon character on it and is clearly designed to be eye catching and to pop on shelves to young children. With bright colours for flavours like Electric Blue Raspberry and Wicked Green Apple, it looks like a fun product, not a strong liqueur. And the names. Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick? It’s no wonder my son was interested. This is a deliberate attempt to connect a 15% ABV product with childhood sweets and is completely irresponsible. The company even uses language aimed at teenagers, telling them the drinks are for main characters and rule breakers.
Calling a drink for “rule breakers” and naming a flavour “Rebel” is telling teenagers it’s cool to be badly behaved. It’s linking the drink to causing trouble and “main characters only”, for kids today, that means being popular and the centre of everything. The brand is suggesting that if you drink this, you’ll be popular. It’s preying on kids insecurities.
When my own child can stand in a supermarket and mistake a bottle of schnapps for a soft drink, it is a catastrophic failure of responsible marketing. The combination of the cartoon character, the sweet shop flavours and the youth oriented slang is baffling and unacceptable”.
As part of the Panel Chair’s consideration of the case, Code rules 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) were also raised on the following grounds:
- 3.2(a) was raised on the grounds of ‘This one flirts first, then bites’ for potentially placed undue emphasis on the higher alcoholic nature or intoxicating effect of a drink.
- 3.2(f) was raised on the grounds of ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ potentially encouraged irresponsible consumption.
- 3.2(g) was raised on the grounds of ‘Shoot it straight’ potentially encouraged rapid/down in one consumption.
- 3.2(j) was raised on the grounds of ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ potentially suggested a change in mood and behaviour.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1. The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph3.2(a). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(e). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(g). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j). A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company questioned the basis of the complaint and explained that while Cactus Jack’s was available to purchase on the Iceland website, it was not yet available in-store with the branding subject to complaint. Nonetheless, the company stated that it would still address the concerns raised in the complaint.
The company explained that Cactus Jack’s had been on sale for more than 20 years in the UK and was popular with young adults aged 18-25. The label was a new design which had been created to help the packaging continue to appeal to those consumers as they matured.
The company highlighted that the front label included the alcoholic descriptor ‘Sour Schnapps’ in large font and other positive alcohol cues such as ‘15% Vol’ which made it clear that the drink contained alcohol. The company explained that the font size for these texts were intentionally larger than in previous versions of the packaging and those versions of the drink (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) had not breached Code rule 3.1 in a previous complaint.
The company addressed the complainant’s assertion that the drink was for ‘rule breakers’ and linked the drink to causing trouble. The company stated that there was nothing on the drink’s packaging that created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The company explained that ‘rule breakers’ was not a phrase used on the packaging and the wording that did appear was intended to encourage independent thought.
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging of the drink suggested that consumption of it could lead to social success or popularity. Instead, the company explained that text on the drink suggested that it could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening.
The company stated that it did not accept that bright colours or flavours such as ‘cola’ or ‘fruit salad’ had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company noted that previous Panel decisions regarding the packaging of Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack had found that the flavours did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also noted that flavours such as Bubble Gum, Strawberry Laces and Lemon Sherbet had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s in 2025 by the Panel. The company explained that it had taken great care crafting the character on the label to ensure that it appealed to adults and was not a character that was based on, or seen, in children’s cartoons. The company stated that the design had been informed by previous Panel decisions which had considered cartoon-style characters and had been found acceptable under the Code.
The company explained that the phrase ‘This one flirts first, then bites’ did not reference the alcoholic strength of the drink but rather referred to the recommended serve style and flavour of the drink. The company stated that the wording therefore did not place undue emphasis on the “alcoholic strength or intoxicating effect” and merely referred to the flavour of the product when used to communicate the recommended serve.
The company stated that the phrases highlighted in the complaint such as ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’ and ‘just add mates, music, and a little chaos ’were intended to suggest that Cactus Jack’s could be enjoyed as part of a fun evening. Therefore, the wording was not intended to encourage irresponsible consumption or suggest that the drink should be consumed excessively or in conjunction with inappropriate actions such as drink driving.
The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ was intended to communicate the serve suggestion that the drink could be enjoyed with no mixer. The company highlighted that consumers regularly enjoyed a ‘shot’ of an alcoholic drink without mixer through sipping, rather than downing a drink in one. The company explained that given the relatively lower alcoholic strength of the drink compared to similar drinks available, Cactus Jack’s could easily be sipped alone or with a mixer. The company stated that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ also appeared above the ‘drink responsibly’ message on the back of the packaging.
The company explained that the phrase ‘Daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ was intended to reflect the occasions when the drink was likely to be consumed, such as in a night club. The company stated that the phrase was intended to give personality to the Cactus Jack character and did not infer that the drink had any specific therapeutic qualities.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company reiterated concerns about the origin of the complaint and stated that while Cactus Jack’s appeared in the current design on the Iceland website, it was not available to purchase with the branding that had been subject to complaint. The company acknowledged that many of the concerns about the packaging had been raised by the Panel Chair but highlighted that this therefore meant there was a lack of evidence of genuine consumer concern. The company stated that while it did not agree that the back label of the product was in breach of the Code, it would be willing to change these elements to address the points raised by the Panel. As part of its response to the provisional decision, the company submitted additional proposed changes for the Panel’s view.
The company stated that it did not agree that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and contested this element of the Panel’s provisional decision. The company explained that it had considered previous similar Panel decisions when finalising the design and had carried out research amongst 18–34year-olds to ensure that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that bright colours were commonplace in alcohol marketing and Cactus Jack’s was not brighter than many other available drinks. Furthermore, particular care had been taken regarding the design of the Cactus Jack’s character to ensure it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that it had designed the character to look more menacing than approachable, and that its smile was sardonic rather than friendly. This was apparent when the smile was considered in combination with other elements of the character, including the partly closed eyes with arched eyebrows, the crossed arms in an unwelcoming stance and the inherent spikes. The company highlighted that other case precedents that were deemed not to have breached the Code by the Panel included smiling characters. The Cactus Jack’s character was not intended to be a cowboy, but it did have a large hat and lived in the desert. The company stated that it did not see a distinction between the complex design of the Cactus Jack’s character and other similar designs which the Panel had previously ruled did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that in previous Panel decisions, both smiling and friendly characters and stern and unfriendly characters had been found acceptable.
The company stated that it did not understand the concern raised regarding the inclusion of fruit imagery on the label. The company disagreed that ‘apple’ was not a flavour typically associated with alcoholic drinks as there were numerous apple, and other fruit flavoured beverages, available on the market including whiskys, schnapps, gins and liqueurs. Furthermore, the company contended that the bright colour of the liquid would be no different from a brightly coloured container.
The company stated that the individual elements of the packaging were not inconsistent with the Code and precedent decisions which had been found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s. In spite of this, in its provisional decision, the Panel had concluded that the combination of elements had created an overall impression that meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company stated that this was a highly subjective conclusion and therefore would make it difficult for the industry to rely on the previous precedents set by the Panel. The company genuinely believed that the design followed guidance and prior decisions and explained that the cost of amending the label and wider marketing materials would not be insignificant.
The company stated that while it was willing to cooperate, it hoped that the Panel would reconsider its position under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel’s assessment
Code rule 3.1
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included a prominent image of a cartoon cactus alongside a reference to the fruit flavour ‘Peach Pucker’ which was centrally placed in a large font. The Panel considered related precedents and noted that packaging which included fruit flavours, or flavours that were typically associated with soft drinks, that were additionally combined with cartoon artwork, needed to work harder to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. With that in mind, the Panel reviewed the rest of the front label which included the text ‘Sour Schnapps’ ‘15% vol’ and ’30 proof’ in sizeable text at the bottom of the bottle. The Panel noted that ‘30 Proof’ was the American depiction of the product’s alcoholic strength and therefore would be less known in the UK as text which indicated the alcoholic nature of the drink. While some consumers could be aware of the meaning, the Panel considered that it was unlikely to be universally understood. However, the Panel also noted that the inclusion of ‘30 proof’ on the label would not necessarily detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly when more common positive alcohol cues were included alongside it. The Panel observed that the phrase appeared alongside the wording ‘Sour Schnapps’ and ‘15% vol’ on the front label which would be familiar positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would understand when determining whether the drink contained alcohol.
The Panel then assessed the back label where the above information was repeated in bold large text. In addition to this, icons of glassware which included shot, highball and martini glasses were also depicted, all of which were commonly associated with alcoholic drinks. The Panel also noted that the label included alcohol and health-related information such as a responsibility message, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information, the Chief Medical Officers low risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol. The Panel considered these were all positive cues that helped to clearly communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety and considered that while the packaging had some elements which were not typically associated with an alcoholic drink, such as the flavour and cartoon imagery, on balance, there were enough clear and prominent cues to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature. Therefore, the Panel concluded the drink did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(a)
The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the text ‘this one flirts first, then bites’ on the back label for consideration. The Panel discussed how ‘bite’ would be understood in the context of an alcoholic drink and determined it was usually used to indicate a drink that was particularly strong and therefore had a ‘bite’ during consumption. The Panel considered that the drink’s alcoholic strength was not higher than the category average at 15% alcoholic strength by volume. The Panel discussed the two elements of the Code rule and noted that a product did not necessarily have to be of higher alcoholic strength within its category to place undue emphasis on its intoxicating effect.
The Panel considered that ‘bite’ would likely suggest that the drink had an unexpected quality and noted that the company’s response explained the phrase was intended to communicate the flavour of the drink. The Panel noted that there was nothing in the text which linked or clarified that ‘bite’ was intended to refer to the flavour of the drink.
Without qualifying text to clarify the meaning of ‘bite’ the Panel considered it would therefore be understood as the established meaning in relation to alcohol; a reference to the unexpected intoxicating effect of the drink. This perception was reinforced by the inclusion of the preceding line, that the drink would ‘flirt’ and then ‘bite’ which implied experiencing a powerful effect from the alcoholic content.
The Panel considered the phrase ‘this one flirts first, then bites’ in the context that the product also contained the line ‘Cactus Jack’s the wild spirit that hits with a sweet-sour kick’. The Panel reiterated that any emotive language such as ‘kick’ or ‘hit’ which may be linked to emphasising the strength or effect of the alcohol should be used with caution. However, in this specific instance, the Panel noted that the line made clear it emphatically related to the taste experience of the contradictory flavour profiles. With that in mind, the Panel considered that this was in direct contrast to ‘this one flirts, then bites’. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the language went beyond a factual communication of the drink’s strength and placed undue emphasis on the intoxicating effect of the drink. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that there was no direct reference to ‘main characters’ or ‘rule breakers’ on the packaging as raised by the complainant as a point of concern. The Panel clarified that it would therefore not consider these phrases as they did not form part of the drink’s packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging which included the line ‘Cactus Jack’s brings the flavour – just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ on the back label. The Panel considered the meaning of the line and in particular the reference to ‘mates’. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(e) and the requirement that alcoholic drinks marketing could not suggest that alcohol could make a person more popular or socially successful. The Panel assessed the line and noted that it specifically stated that the drink would bring flavour to the occasion; with the onus on the consumer to gather their own friends. The Panel considered that it was acceptable to market an alcoholic drink as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion, but that it would be unacceptable to suggest that a person would become more popular as a result of alcohol consumption. With that in mind, the Panel concluded that the line clearly referred to the drink bringing ‘flavour’ and did not suggest that social success would be an outcome of consumption.
During the original consideration of the product, the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ had been raised for discussion by the Chair under Code rule 3.2(j) for potentially suggesting that the product could change mood or behaviour. However, during the drafting of the provisional decision, the Chair requested that the Panel reconsider the line under Code rule 3.2(e) on the basis that it more aptly referred to a moment and therefore potentially suggested improvement of a social occasion, as opposed to a change in mood or behaviour of an individual. An additional Panel meeting followed at the Chair’s request to discuss the clarification and to determine how the Code should be applied to the line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’.
The Panel considered guidance under Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that marketing could not suggest that the presence or consumption of alcohol could act as a catalyst to transform an event into one that was better, or in this case, ‘legend’. The Panel considered the language and noted that the phrase specifically used the word ‘turn’ which directly suggested that the moment would only become legendary due to the inclusion and consumption of alcohol. The Panel considered that an evening, or moment, that had become ‘legend’ reinforced the perception that the occasion would be significantly improved by the presence of alcohol. The Panel stated that the phrase was inherently irresponsible and directly suggested that alcohol had played a key part in transforming an occasion.
On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could transform an otherwise ordinary unplanned moment into legend which suggested that the product would improve a social occasion and was the catalyst for the success of the occasion. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the packaging encouraged immoderate, irresponsible or illegal consumption as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrases ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music, and a little chaos’ and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that all of them directly insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen as a result of consuming the product. The Panel considered there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ that was chaotic with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour, not only in the context of promoting an alcoholic drink, but also directly linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption, was unacceptable under the Code. In addition to this, the Panel considered that the glorifying of such behaviour, in the context of promoting an alcoholic product, was heavily linked to binge drinking, where a person’s behaviour may become uninhibited and unpredictable as a result of drunkenness. The Panel stated that this was entirely inappropriate for alcohol marketing and concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel considered whether the packaging urged the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted text on the back label which read ‘Shoot it straight or mix it easy’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response and agreed a ‘shot’ could refer to a specific measure of a drink, usually for a spirit or liqueur. The Panel discussed accompanying Portman Group guidance to the Code rule and noted that ‘shot’ could also refer to a rapid style of consumption. The Panel clarified that while such terminology was not inherently problematic, producers needed to take care when using certain language in marketing to ensure that the messaging was clearly referring to a serve measurement rather than a rapid style of consumption. The Panel reviewed the label alongside the company’s response and noted that the word ‘shot’ did not appear on the drink’s packaging. Instead, the Panel noted that the phrase ‘shoot it straight’ appeared on the back label. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to imbibing the drink in one go and was synonymous with a down in one style of consumption. The Panel acknowledged the company intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the inclusion of the word ‘shoot’ was a clear imperative verb and instruction to down the product in one. Furthermore, in the absence of the word ‘shot’, there was no information within the text that suggested the narrative referred to a shot measurement. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘shoot it straight’ read as an instruction which urged a consumer to down the product in one and encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(g).
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the company’s response which highlighted that the use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s as established in some case precedents. The Panel agreed that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic under the Code but clarified they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) depending on the overall context and presentation on a drink’s packaging.
The Panel considered the packaging in its entirety and noted that the bottle had clear glass which meant that the liquid was clearly visible giving the packaging a bright orange and red colour. The front label included a large anthropomorphic cactus which was styled as a cowboy, surrounded by flying fruit and coloured liquid which represented the drink’s flavour, peach. The cactus and fruit imagery had a cartoon style which incorporated bright contrasting colours such as green, red and yellow as well as thick black key lines surrounding the imagery and text. The Panel noted that the drink’s flavour, peach, was positioned prominently in large text in the centre of the label with the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume and legal descriptor ‘schnapps’ appearing in slightly smaller but still clear text at the bottom of the label.
The Panel discussed case precedents that had not breached the Code for having a particular appeal to under-18s and also considered research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries* which provided guidance on the appearance of characters in marketing that may appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s guidance under Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that it highlighted that characters are a known way of providing an approachable and relatable element to a brand identity. Such characters, particularly anthropomorphic ones, with large eyes and smiling faces were likely to have more appeal to under-18s due to their perceived welcoming nature. The Panel noted that in some previous cases characters that were found to be acceptable had a stern, unfriendly disposition and employed detailed designs which incorporated muted colours with a limited colour palette. The Panel also noted that in cases where the character did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s, inclusion of a cartoon-like anthropomorphised character still created a certain level of appeal which could be exacerbated by other elements such as bright colours and certain flavours.
In this case, the Panel noted that the cartoon cactus on the Cactus Jack’s label had a wide, exaggerated smile which gave it a more friendly and welcoming appearance. The Panel noted that the cactus did not have large eyes and was covered in spikes with its arms posed in a crossed expression which reduced childlike appeal to an extent. However, on balance, the Panel considered that the impression conveyed by the cactus was one that was inherently cartoon-like with an exaggerated facial expression including a wide-open mouth, a cactus dressed as a cowboy and flying fruit in the background. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the design of the cactus was not particularly complex or intricate in its design and included thick bold key lines as well as contrasting primary colours. The Panel noted that while the cactus was not based on a real-life cartoon character, it was styled as a friendly cowboy and this was a common motif found in children’s media which, when combined with the above elements, would enhance the appeal that the imagery had to under-18s.
The Panel noted that the cactus character appeared in the wider context of a brightly coloured, sweet and fruit flavoured drink. The Panel considered that while such a flavour was not inherently problematic, fruit flavours would contribute to the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the childlike appeal of the packaging was exacerbated by the brightly coloured liquid which emphasised the drink’s sweet flavour. The Panel noted that both bright colours and sweet flavours were flagged as areas in guidance that companies should be mindful of when designing a product so that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and that this rationale was consistent with case precedents.
The Panel noted that the company did not contest any other part of the provisional decision aside from the Panel’s ruling under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel explained that it would not consider any proposed revisions to the drink’s label as that was not within its scope as the final arbiter of the Code. The Panel welcomed the company’s willingness to cooperate and suggested that the company should work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the label.
The Panel reiterated that previous case precedents had established that, in isolation, cartoon characters, sweet flavours and bright colours did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel emphasised that guidance and precedent had been clear to state that elements which may be acceptable in isolation, when combined with other elements, could tip over the line of compliance and create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Chair sought to remind companies that all Panel decisions would involve a degree of subjectivity, both because the role of the Panel was to draw on the individual experience of its lay members to apply the Code but also because the rules themselves were written as broad principles rather than objective thresholds. Therefore, while the Panel would have regard to established precedent to maintain regulatory consistency, all packaging would be judged on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits to determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel reviewed the cactus character and noted the company’s point that it was not intended to be a cowboy and had intentionally been stylised to convey a sardonic expression. The Panel acknowledged that there were elements of the cactus, such as its spikey body and crossed arm posture that would not necessarily appeal to children, and this was noted in its initial assessment of the packaging. Nevertheless, these characteristics would need to be considered alongside the rest of the design to determine the level of appeal the character would have to under-18s. The Panel noted the cactus had exaggerated features including a large smile and oversized hat which diminished the character’s cynical appearance and resulted in a more light-hearted presentation. This impression was amplified by the inclusion of swirling flavour images which enhanced the impression that the cactus had a fun and playful feel, similar to cartoons found in children’s media. The design employed thick black key lines which contributed to the cartoon-like style of the character and meant the image appeared visually simplistic. The Panel discussed that while the cactus was perhaps not intended to be a ‘cowboy’ it still invoked a strong western theme which was a motif that children would find enticing particularly where the main character was a cartoon anthropomorphic cactus. In addition to this, the colours used were bright and vibrant with a level of contrast that children would find particularly stimulating. The size of the cactus meant it was centrally eye-catching and prominent on packaging which would further draw a child’s attention. Assessing the cumulative impact of these points, the Panel considered that, on balance, the character did enhance the appeal the label would have to under-18s.
In the context of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the cartoon-like anthropomorphised western-styled cactus with exaggerated features, cartoon flying fruit, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and a sweet flavour, all combined in a manner which meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the Panel Chair at the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint. The Panel Chair highlighted the phrase ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ for consideration. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the phrase was intended to reference the environment where one might consume the drink and give personality to the cactus character. The Panel noted that the line did not refer to an environment or to characteristics of the cactus character and instead by using the word ‘you’ directly linked the reference to human behaviour.
The Panel then discussed accompanying 3.2(j) guidance which stated that a drink should not be presented as a catalyst for a change of mood or behaviour. With this in mind, the Panel considered the first line and noted that the language was emotive and directly linked to a transformative action. The Panel discussed the inference conveyed by the sentence and noted that text on an alcoholic drink which ‘dared’ a consumer to do certain actions to a ‘harder’ and ‘louder’ level directly suggested that consumption of the drink would enable a consumer to reach those enhanced states. The Panel noted that this inference went beyond describing an environment as suggested by the company and instead created a clear link between consumption and a change in mood and behaviour.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the line ‘daring you to dance harder, laugh louder’ directly suggested that the drink could change mood and behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service
* Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
Over the years the Portman Group has worked with a huge number of alcohol producers and most of the time those interactions are positive and constructive.
Like many growing brands, Tiny Rebel’s early interactions weren’t without challenge. But through open conversation and a better understanding of the landscape, that relationship has evolved into a more collaborative and proactive one.
Understanding that compliance and regulation are there to protect consumers rather than intentionally punish producers. We sat down with Brad Cummings, Founder of Tiny Rebel, to understand where they’ve come from as a business, where they are now and where they want to be in the future.
How did you feel when you first heard from the PG?
“At the time, we were a young, fast-growing business and Cwtch was a huge brand for us, so naturally it got our attention straight away. Like most founders, your instinct is to protect what you’ve built, so we were probably a bit defensive early on. But pretty quickly we realised there was an opportunity to take a step back and better understand the landscape we were operating in.
“Since then, our approach has evolved. We now build compliance into our process from idea concept stage. It means we can still push creativity but do it in a way that works for everyone. The relationship with the Portman Group today is very different to where we started, it’s collaborative, it’s proactive, and it helps us move our brands forward with more confidence.”
Can you tell us more about your B Corp status and what that means to you?
“Becoming a B Corp was a big milestone for us, but it wasn’t something we chased overnight. It came out of a wider piece of work we did post-Covid through our ‘Fit for the Future’ strategy, where we really challenged ourselves on what kind of business we wanted to be long term.
“What we found was that a lot of the principles of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) – people, community and planet were already part of how we were working. B Corp gave us a clear framework to measure, improve and hold ourselves accountable – it’s not about being perfect, it’s about continuous improvement.”
What does it mean to you to be a part of the community here in Newport?
“It means everything to us. Newport is where we started, it’s where we grew up, and it’s still at the heart of everything we do.
“We’ve always believed that if you’re building a business in a community, you’ve got a responsibility to contribute to it as well. Whether that’s creating jobs, supporting local causes, or just building places where people can come together and have a great time.
“As we’ve grown, that’s only become more important. We’re really proud to represent Newport on a bigger stage, but equally proud of what we can give back locally.”
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, adds, “Tiny Rebel is a great example of a company that faced several complaints but by working cooperatively with the Portman Group’s free Advisory Service has been able to retain their distinctive style and character whilst remaining compliant with the Codes. Our Advisory service is a free and confidential service available to the whole industry.”
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) is pleased to announce the appointment of three new Panel members.
Following a rigorous and highly competitive recruitment process, Karen Betts OBE, Matt Barwell and Richard Schofield have been appointed to the Panel and have attended their first meeting.
- Karen is the Chief Executive of the Food & Drink Federation and is a former CEO of the Scotch Whisky Association. Prior to that, she held several posts in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and the Cabinet Office. Before joining government, Karen was a lawyer. She has also been an Adviser to the Government’s Board of Trade. She received an OBE in 2022 for services to international trade.
- Matt has extensive experience working in marketing, corporate affairs and sustainability for three of the world’s leading FMCG businesses, Mars, Diageo and Britvic and currently serves as a board advisor for Accenture. He is a member of the ASA Council and a non-executive director for several private equity backed FMCG businesses.
- Richard is a senior civil servant and former Chief Planning Inspector for England, with considerable experience of chairing public inquiries. Richard is also an independent complaints assessor for the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, is a Panel Chair for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and sits on the Royal Town Planning Institute’s Membership and Ethics Committee.
The Panel is chaired by Rachel Childs and new members are carefully recruited to represent a cross-section of society with a balance of experience and expertise in key areas such as licensing, public health, children’s services and law.
The ICP is independent from the Portman Group and considers complaints brought forward on the naming, packaging, promotion and sponsorship of alcoholic drinks based on the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice. The Panel meets several times a year to consider these complaints and decide whether they are upheld or not upheld based on evidence.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel said: “It is a real pleasure to be able to welcome three new members to the Panel. Karen, Matt and Richard bring a wealth of experience which will strengthen Panel decision-making and keep producers working within the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice. The Code rules against which the Panel makes its decisions are varied and the complaints we see can be complex; it is therefore vital that Panel members are experienced and balanced in their views and I look forward to working with these new members.
“I also want to take this opportunity to thank our outgoing Panel members, Hina Parmar and Amanda Orchard, for their hard work and expertise over the course of their terms”
The Portman Group is delighted to welcome Damm UK as its newest full member, bringing The Portman Group’s overall membership to 22 companies from across the drinks industry – the largest ever. As the alcohol industry’s self-regulator and social responsibility body, entering the 30th year of its Code of Practice, having a strong and flourishing membership is essential.
Damm, best known for its iconic Estrella Damm lager which it has been brewing since 1876, has a long history of producing a number of well-known beers and lagers, some of which will now be brewed in the UK in Bedford at the recently launched Damm Eagle Brewery.
Luke White, Managing Director, Damm UK said: “As a total beverage company that produces alcohol, we take responsibility very seriously. Becoming a member of the Portman Group in Damm’s 150th year of operation demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that all our customers and consumers are enjoying our products in a responsible and moderate way. We are delighted to join other members and look forward to working together in ensuring a responsible alcohol industry.”
Matt Lambert, CEO of The Portman Group said: “The Portman Group has been working in partnership with its industry members for more than 30 years to encourage responsible business practices and moderate consumption by those who drink alcohol and as such, we are excited to welcome Damm UK as our newest member. Being a responsible producer has meant that joining the Portman Group was an easy step for Damm and we look forward to working with them to ensure they continue to market their products responsibly and encourage them as leaders in best practice across the drinks industry.”
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.