Producer:
Aldi Stores
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“Product is called “The Reprobates” (noun – an unprincipled person), the label shows a mono image of a Doberman dog in a hoodie, potentially implying danger and anti-social behaviour if you believe in social stereo-typing”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that the drink’s packaging was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice.
The company explained that term ‘reprobates’ was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The term ‘reprobates’ was similar to ‘rascal,’ a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfie’s Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that ‘reprobates’ created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the industry.
The company explained that alcohol artwork often employed unconventional and surprising elements to capture attention and the juxtaposition of a dog dressed in a hoodie was intended to create a visually intriguing image. The image was whimsical and a stylised representation that was unusual and eye-catching in order to differentiate from other products in the market. The company stated it was incorrect to suggest that a hoodie, or a dog wearing a hoodie, referenced or glamourised violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal activity. The company explained that ‘hoodies’ had become ubiquitous contemporary fashion attire, worn by all ages and backgrounds and therefore reflected modern aesthetic rather than negative connotations. The company noted the Panel’s decision against Cwtch, which stated that the dishevelled bear, slumped back with empty bottles depicted on the floor, contributed to a breach of Code rule 3.2(b). In contrast, The Reprobates California Red included a realistic image of a dog, with a straight expression that was not intoxicated and with no other elements which could associate the image with alcohol. The company highlighted that the dog itself was not depicted in an aggressive stance such as having raised eyebrows or bared teeth.
The company stated it was committed to the responsible retail of alcohol and complied with alcohol marketing guidelines. The products were exclusively sold in Aldi stores, ensuring they were not marketed to under-18s and the company employed a challenge 25 policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent underage sales.
The Panel’s assessment
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 first discussed the name, ‘The Reprobates’, to determine how reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producer’s response that ‘reprobate’ was intended to be akin to ‘rascal’, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, ‘reprobate’ was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that ‘reprobate’ could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.
The Panel then discussed the front label which included an image of a dog wearing a hoodie set against a dark background. The Panel considered that the shadowing technique employed meant that the animal appeared edgy and implied a dark tone but noted that this did not go as far to create an association with aggressive or anti-social behaviour. The Panel discussed the depiction of the dog, a Doberman, and noted that it was not an illegal breed within the UK, nor was it a breed associated with dog fighting or unprovoked attacks. Whilst the dog appeared stern, it was not adopting an aggressive stance; it did not have pinned back ears, bared teeth or snarling lips. The Panel noted that the dog was wearing a ‘hoodie’ but considered that, while the dog’s hood was raised, it was not being used in an intimidating manner or obscuring his face in a way that could be suggestive of anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, the Panel considered that a hoodie was a common and popular item of clothing worn by all ages and therefore did not inherently create an association with anti-social behaviour.
In light of the above, the Panel considered the rest of the label which did not include any other reference to violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour and therefore concluded that the packaging did not breach the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
None required.
A complaint against Hooch Lemon’s 1995 Limited Edition Can has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, which was self-referred by the producer, Global Brands, asked the Panel to review the limited-edition version of Hooch Lemon under Code rule 3.2(h) which ensures a product cannot have a particular appeal to under-18s. In a first for the regulator, Global Brands self-referred the complaint to the Panel, in agreement with the Portman Group, when concerns were raised on the basis of a 1996 upheld decision by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code.
The producer planned to release the limited-edition can that emulated the original 1995 design which featured a cartoon lemon. The company explained that the design was a special 30th Anniversary edition and that slight changes had been made, especially to the prominent character on the product, the Lemon Man, to comply with the Code. The company also argued that consumer attitudes and regulatory standards had evolved over the years to the point where the packaging would not have a particular appeal to under-18s today.
Whilst the Panel would not normally revisit previous decisions, it was agreed that an exception could be made as the 1996 ruling was made by the Portman Group executive in the few months before the Independent Complaints Panel was set up in January 1997.
While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made in 1996, this had been based on the lemon’s similarity to motifs popular in the ‘90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time. The Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since, contemporary marketing styles, societal standards and more developed regulatory guidance had evolved, changing what particularly appealed to children today.
After consideration, the Panel considered that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not feature characteristics that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. In addition to this, the Panel concluded that the mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and clear nostalgic appeal to adults meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “This was a unique case and there was a good argument for the Panel revisiting this issue, given the exceptional circumstances of the previous ruling. After nearly 30 years of Panel decisions, developed regulatory guidance and inevitable changes in consumer attitudes, as well as the changes that were made to the design of the product in question, it was determined that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today. It is important to note that this unique set of circumstances does not apply to other decisions made by the Panel but I was pleased to see that, when an anomaly was discovered, the producer voluntarily pursued a responsible resolution in agreement with the Portman Group.”
Matt Bulcroft, Marketing Director Global Brands Ltd said: “We are grateful to have had the opportunity to work alongside the Portman Group throughout this process. As a responsible drinks producer, we value the important role they play in upholding high standards across the industry, and ensuring consumers can have confidence in the brands they buy from, which is why we made the decision to self-refer to the Panel.
“We welcome their careful review of Hooch’s fun and nostalgic lemon character, and are pleased with the outcome of the ruling, which has allowed our original Hooch fans to relive their memories from when it first landed on shelves 30 years ago.
“Our commitment to producing and promoting our drinks responsibly remains central to Global Brands, and we appreciate the Portman Group’s continued partnership in supporting best practice across the sector.”
Producer:
Global Brands
Complainant:
Self-referral
Complaint:
“Global Brands addressed compliance concerns raised by The Portman Group regarding a planned Hooch 90th Anniversary limited-edition packaging featuring the original “Lemon Man” design. Global Brands acknowledged the historical context of the 1996 ruling against the design and voluntarily self-referred the matter to the Independent Complaints Panel for reassessment under modern standards.
Global Brands highlighted that it was amongst a very few select cases in the Portman Group’s history where the original ruling was made before the establishment of the Independent Complaints Panel in 1997. Global Brands stated that the design had been updated to reduce youth appeal and that this design was aligned with recent Panel precedents, as opposed to those which were made nearly 30 years ago. Global Brands also highlighted that the RTD (ready-to-drink) category had evolved since 1996, with reduced appeal to minors and lower average alcohol by volume (ABV).
On the basis of these changed circumstances, Global Brands reiterated its commitment to responsible marketing and requested a fair review by the Independent Complaints Panel”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
As a long-standing signatory to the Code of Practice, the company stated it valued its relationship with the Portman Group and the guidance it provided in fostering a responsible and trusted alcohol industry. The company emphasised its serious commitment to adhering to the Code’s principles and highlighted its proactive efforts to reduce the alcoholic strength of products across its Ready to Drink (RTD) portfolio. This included Hooch, which had a 3.4% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), demonstrating its dedication to moderation, responsibility and product stewardship.
The company stated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can was explicitly positioned for an adult audience, supported by independent consumer insight and behavioural data, with over 87% of its consumer base aged 35 and over. The company explained that this was achieved through a strategy to re-engage consumers with a nostalgic connection to the brand’s original launch in 1995. The campaign referenced cultural touchstones and irreverent humour that were understood by those who were adults or teenagers in the 1990s. The design choices and brand voice were deliberately calibrated to resonate with a mature demographic rather than under-18s. The company explained that there were clear parallels with other complaint precedents, where the Panel had acknowledged that retro characters were acceptable when they clearly resonated with older consumers.
The company explained that the can was designed with a mature, nostalgic aesthetic, featuring black as the primary colour, which was not typically associated with children’s products. The company added that yellow had been used sparingly to denote flavour rather than for decoration or playfulness. Serif and refined fonts were employed instead of bubble or playful styles that were often linked to children’s media. Furthermore, the Hooch logo was bold, sharp and structured, avoiding cartoonish forms. The company stated this design aligned with the Portman Group’s guidance and was consistent with previous Panel decisions on products such as Cwtch, AU Vodka Bubblegum, and Wingman.
The company explained that as the word ‘lemonade’ featured on the product, a considered effort was made to ensure the drink’s alcoholic nature was clearly communicated. The company highlighted that the packaging prominently displayed the term “Alcoholic Lemonade”, included multiple ABV indicators, responsible drinking messages and an 18+ icon. The company explained that this was aligned with the market standard for similar drinks.
The company stated that the lemon character on the can was based on a grimacing icon from the original 1995 campaign which was part of the “refreshment with a bite” platform. Its visual design was aligned with subversive, adult-oriented cartoons from the 1990s, such as Ren & Stimpy and Beavis & Butt-Head. The company explained that this aesthetic contrasted sharply with modern children’s media, which typically featured soft shapes, bright colours and friendly expressions. The lemon lacked limbs, a smile or eyes — traits commonly associated with child-oriented characters — and was instead used as a visual metaphor for strong flavour rather than as a mascot. The company stated that the cultural and generational gap between the can artwork and contemporary children’s entertainment was crucial to demonstrating compliance with Code rule 3.2(h). Furthermore, the company considered that recent similar precedents supported the position that the combination of retro styling and absence of childlike traits were acceptable and this included packaging that featured characters.
The company explained that in the broader context, RTDs were consumed by only 10% of underage drinkers, significantly less than beer, cider, and spirits. The company highlighted NHS data which reflected a category breakdown beyond traditional “Alcopops”, such as canned cocktails and spirit-and-mixers, many of which were not colourful or fruit-led. The company stated that the assumption that RTDs inherently appealed to under-18s was not supported by data and therefore the assessment of the packaging should be based purely on its actual design and presentation, which would not attract underage interest.
The company submitted commissioned research which demonstrated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can resonated predominately with consumers aged 31-60. The company also highlighted data within this which reflected that younger consumers were more engaged with other SKUs in its portfolio. Furthermore, its commissioned research showed that the majority of consumers recognised the drink as alcoholic when compared with two other similar drinks that had previously been considered by the Panel with no breach of the Code being found in either case.
The company concluded that the above points demonstrated that the drink was nostalgic and appealed to a mature audience and therefore was not in breach of the Code.
The Panel’s assessment
The Chair explained that the company had chosen to self-refer a complaint regarding the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can after it had been contacted by the Portman Group regarding a potential compliance issue. The company had self-referred the complaint to the Panel on the basis that similar packaging had been upheld in 1996 by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code as it was found to appeal to under-18s. The Chair stated that this was one of a select few of cases that had been subject to a decision by the Portman Group, rather than the Panel which had been created in 1997 and had been made at a time where there was significant concern regarding alcopops. In addition to this, the Chair noted that in compliance discussions with the Portman Group, the company had highlighted that regulatory standards had evolved over time and that the packaging had been amended to ensure that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today. In agreement with the Portman Group, the company had therefore self-referred the case to the Panel to determine if it was acceptable under the Code. The Panel noted this information and thanked the company for its proactive action given the unique set of circumstances that pertained to the case.
The Panel discussed the 1996 decision regarding Hooch which had concluded that the personified lemon was similar to motifs of the time and therefore appealed to under-18s. The Panel considered the company’s response and acknowledged that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision was made, children’s media and marketing had evolved significantly. The Panel also noted that its own understanding of marketing techniques that were used to appeal to under-18s had developed and that this was informed and supported by research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1]. The Panel acknowledged that the original decision was based on the personified lemon being similar in appearance to ‘existing motifs appealing to under-18s’ in 1996 and considered that as 30 years had passed it was important to assess the current packaging against updated precedents and guidance, new research, contemporary marketing styles and current societal standards.
The Panel assessed the front label and noted that it included a large personified yellow lemon on a predominantly black background. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h), which had been informed by the Kids Industries report, and noted that the lemon did have some elements which could appeal to under-18s such as a thick black key line and relatively simple design. However, the Panel noted that the lemon had a grimaced facial expression with its teeth exposed and lips pulled apart which gave a menacing impression. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the lemon had small eyes which were furrowed into a frowned expression. The Panel considered that the lemon did not appear to be playful or friendly and was unlikely to be engaging to a younger audience as it differed vastly from children’s cartoon characters who usually adopted a welcoming stance, large eyes and a smiling face. The Panel considered that while the imagery included the use of yellow, the colour palette overall was saturated and there were few contrasts with minimal use of primary colours. The Panel discussed the company’s response and the decision to use the colour yellow sparingly to denote flavour and the choice to update the design of the lemon so that it was more aligned in design with adult-orientated cartoons from the 90s. With this in mind, the Panel noted that the lemon did not have a friendly demeanour or welcoming features and appeared in an overall design with a limited colour palette. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the design of the lemon was very similar to that which had appeared on the original 1995 packaging and would be recognised by adult consumers. As the lemon did not bear similarity to characters that were popular with contemporary children, the Panel considered that the lemon would instead have a particular nostalgic appeal to those who would remember it from the 90s and would now be over 30 years old. On this basis, the Panel considered that the lemon character did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the overall impression conveyed by the rest of the packaging. The Panel noted that the majority of the label was black, with yellow highlights used for font, the lemon, the rim and base of the can, alongside small uses of green and red. The Panel considered that the predominantly black label conveyed a mature impression and the use of the straight-lined serif font also contributed to an adult-orientated style. The Panel discussed the lemonade flavour and considered that this would have a broad appeal across all age groups. The Panel noted that at the bottom of the can was a box which read ‘since 1995’ and was presented as a motif to popular Brit Pop band Oasis, who had recently reformed and launched a UK tour. In addition to this, at the top of the can, was a green banner which read ‘30 years of’, further conveying that the product was targeted at a very specific adult demographic. The Panel considered that both these cues emphasised the nostalgic appeal the drink would have to those who were young adults in the 90s and would not hold a particular appeal to under-18s today.
While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made against Hooch by the Portman Group in 1996, this had been based on its similarity to motifs which had been popular in the 90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time. In this particular case, the Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision, contemporary marketing styles and societal standards had evolved which had fundamentally changed what would particularly appeal to children today. This shift in cultural landscape had also been accompanied by more detailed and developed regulatory guidance which had informed updated understanding as to what marketing elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s. In this context, the Panel concluded that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not have welcoming, friendly features, was presented with a menacing grimace and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel also considered that the packaging used mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and incorporated elements which had clear nostalgic appeal to adults such as references to a 30-year anniversary and the year 1995. Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the packaging was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
[1] Marketing That Appeals to Under 18s, Prepared for the Portman Group and the Independent Complaints Panel by Kids Industries, 2023
A complaint against Lervig’s Passion Tang Sour Ale has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.1, that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel heard from the producer that the can was designed ‘in the round’ with no specific front or back and that the term ‘Sour Ale’ and the ABV (alcohol by volume) were present on the can. On examining the can the Panel noted that the design was fairly busy with an overt emphasis on passionfruit and that the positive alcohol cues were presented in relatively small font size on one side of the can.
The Panel also discussed the can size and the name and noted that the 330ml can and the name ‘Passion Tang’ are both associated with non-alcoholic soft drinks. They noted the inclusion of the descriptor and ABV as well as the pregnancy warning label but that these were in a small font size and were hard to read amongst the design of the can as a whole.
On considering all these elements, the Panel found that they detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature and could cause consumer confusion and so the Panel found that the packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code Rule 3.1.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “It is not always enough simply to include positive alcohol cues. Producers must ensure that they are clear and sufficiently obvious to counter a significant emphasis on fruit imagery flavours, as was seen in this case.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Lervig
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
The can has no mention of alcohol content on the front and, with the illustrations, the alcoholic nature of the drink is not communicated with absolute clarity.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained it was a craft beer producer based in Stavanger, Norway and therefore operated under some of the most restrictive alcohol laws globally. Since establishing its visual branding in 2016, it had not received any complaints regarding its artwork, product names, or any related matters. The company stated that its beers, including “Passion Tang” were considered long-standing classics, sold domestically and exported to approximately 30 countries, all without any reported issues.
The company explained that the can designs were round and lacked a defined front, with clear information about the product such as “SOUR ALE” and the alcohol content of “7% VOL.” easily visible on one part of the can. The company therefore stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink had been communicated with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the brand had been in the market for over seven years, maintaining the same design throughout, and had received no complaints or instances of consumers mistakenly purchasing it.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel discussed whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the front label of the can and noted that it was absent of any typical positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s legal name, alcoholic descriptors or the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). Instead, the Panel noted that the predominant imagery for three-quarters of the wraparound artwork was cartoon-like passionfruit slices alongside stylised illustrations of legs and toes. The Panel discussed that passionfruit was not a typical flavour associated with alcoholic drinks and noted that, overall, the design was fairly busy with an overt emphasis on passionfruit. The Panel considered that these design features could detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature. However, the Panel noted that it was not a requirement of the Code or the law to include mandatory information on the front of packaging and that guidance accompanying the Code rule advised that the entirety of the label must be considered when determining compliance with the Code.
The Panel then considered the back label and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues in small text such as the drink’s ABV, the descriptor ‘Sour Ale’, the pregnancy warning logo and the drink’s unit content information. The Panel noted that these elements were included alongside other information such as the drink’s ingredients and recycling details which were presented in a relatively small font size and did not particularly stand out on the packaging. The Panel considered the drink’s name, ‘Passion Tang’, which was included on the top of the back label. The Panel discussed the name and noted that ‘tang’ was commonly used to describe non-alcoholic products such as sweets or soft drinks in the UK. The Panel considered that ‘Passion Tang’ as a name alone would not communicate to consumers that the drink was alcoholic as it was likely that the term on a 330ml can would be more associated with fruit flavoured non-alcoholic drinks.
With that in mind, the Panel carefully considered whether the packaging had the capacity to cause consumer confusion. The Panel acknowledged that there were some positive alcoholic cues on the back of the packaging but noted from previous precedent cases that compliance with UK legal regulations did not necessarily equate to compliance with Code rule 3.1, particularly where packaging had incorporated predominant fruit imagery or placed emphasis on a flavour not typically associated with an alcoholic drink. In those cases, the Panel had concluded a product may need to work harder to ensure its alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the producer’s response that the product was only available in speciality alcohol shops but reminded producers that all products that were purchased could be taken into the home environment and that this remained outside of the producer’s control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed.
With the above points in mind, the Panel concluded that the name ‘Passion Tang’, alongside the predominant passionfruit design and fruit flavour was the overwhelming impression conveyed by the product. The Panel considered that whilst there were some positive alcohol cues on the back of the packaging these were all included in relatively small size font and that the overwhelming fruit messaging detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature and could cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic or not. Therefore, on balance, the Panel found that the packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the
complaint under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
No longer sold in the UK.
A complaint against Radler Lemon, Grapefruit and Pineapple Beer has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public raised concerns under Code Rule 3.1, that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel considered the representations made by the Producer, Vault City Brewing, that there were several positive alcohol cues on the packaging, including the use of the term ‘Radler’ as a well-known type of citrus-based beer, however, the Panel disagreed that this term was well known enough on its own. The Panel considered that the label did include the ABV, and the word beer, but they were not clear enough to counter the rest of the label which included references to fruity flavours and imagery that were given prominence and therefore bore a resemblance to a soft drink.
The side of the can also heavily referenced the fruit flavours over the references to beer and alcohol and while the back label did include the drink’s ABV and a pregnancy warning label, other best practice labels such as the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking guidelines and signposting to Drinkaware were absent.
The Panel heard that there was evidence of consumer confusion where an under-age individual had mistakenly consumed the product and so concluded that the positive alcohol cues that had been included needed to be enhanced and made clearer to mitigate the emphasis on the drink’s fruit flavour, fruit imagery and use of the word ‘Radler’. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The producer has since changed the packaging to be in line with the Code.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “The guidance for Code rule 3.1 states that where there are multiple negative alcohol cues on a drink’s packaging, such as fruit flavours and imagery, a product may then need to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature and to avoid consumer confusion, which is what we saw in the case against Radler Lemon, Grapefruit and Pineapple Beer.”
A spokesperson for Vault City said: “We take responsible marketing extremely seriously and have never intended to mislead consumers about the alcoholic nature of our products. Radler Lemon, Grapefruit and Pineapple Beer was clearly labelled with its ABV, the word ‘beer’ and other alcohol cues. However, we recognise the importance of making labelling as clear as possible and respect the Panel’s decision. We have updated the packaging in line with their guidance, boldening and emphasising the word ‘beer’. Alcohol should always be stored responsibly and out of the reach of under-18s, and we remain fully committed to meeting the industry’s Code and ensuring our products are enjoyed safely by those legally allowed to do so.”
Producer:
Vault City Brewing
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am contacting you regarding the packaging of a Scottish brewery called Vault City. I purchased some of their products and left them in the fridge. When I was out my son picked radler out of the fridge thinking it was a soft drink. He opens it and tried it and fortunately didn’t like it. The packaging is immigrating san pelegrino soft drinks and that is what he thought it was”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company emphasised its commitment to responsible marketing, compliance with regulations and highlighted that, in its view, the packaging was compliant. The company explained that the product was only sold through independent retailers but stated that it was open to constructive feedback from the Panel.
The company stated that it was confident that the alcoholic nature of Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Radler was clearly conveyed through several cues on the packaging. The company argued that the word “beer” appeared prominently on the front of the can, alongside the company name “Vault City Brewing” which reinforced the alcoholic nature of the drink. Additionally, the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 3.4% was displayed on the front, with the messaging “ALC 3.4% VOL”, unit content information and a pregnancy warning logo also present on the back label. The company stated that these elements adhered to legal labelling requirements and best practice guidelines for responsible alcohol communication, exceeding the standards observed in previous not upheld cases under Code rule 3.1.
The company referenced similar cases where the Panel had determined that the presence of an ABV and other alcohol cues were sufficient enough to avoid a breach, despite the absence of the word “beer” on the front of the pack. The company highlighted that the packaging of Radler Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Beer went beyond this by prominently displaying the ABV alongside explicit alcohol descriptors which included the words “beer” and “brewing” on the front of the packaging, ensuring even greater clarity regarding the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The company described itself as a fruit-forward craft brewery that used over 185,000kg of real fruit annually in its beers. The company stated that its packaging was designed to emphasise the real fruit ingredients in a modern and adult-appropriate manner. The design aligned with the broader Radler category, which was characterised by bright, citrus-forward artwork and lower alcoholic strength. The company highlighted that Radler was a well-established beer style, recognised by consumers in both mainstream and craft sectors as a low-strength, fruit-infused beer, citing other examples on the market which featured similarly vibrant, fruit-led packaging.
The company explained that its product was packaged in a 330ml sleek can, a format commonly used in the UK alcohol market for ready-to-drink cocktails and fruit-forward alcoholic beverages. The company highlighted that this packaging style was familiar to UK consumers as a standard choice for alcoholic drinks, not just soft drinks. To prevent consumer confusion, the company had included clear and visible alcohol indicators, such as the word “beer” on the front, multiple ABV statements and responsible drinking messaging.
The company expressed regret that a child had accessed the drink and suggested this may have been because the alcohol had been left unattended in a family fridge instead of in a locked beer fridge. The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the product had been clearly communicated and was consistent with both regulatory standards and previous Panel precedents. The company concluded that it remained committed to upholding best practice standards and would carefully consider any recommendations by the Panel.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging of Radler Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Beer communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity, regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014. However, compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1. The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code if it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Panel assessed the front label of the drink which included the word ‘Radler’ in a prominent large font. The Panel discussed that while the term ‘Radler’ may be recognised by some consumers as a citrus-based beer, this was not a universally recognised term to denote alcohol in the UK. The Panel acknowledged that the term was better known with a younger drinking demographic but noted that it had not been understood by the underage person who had accidentally consumed the drink. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘Radler’ on its own did not sufficiently communicate the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that the front label included the product’s alcoholic strength of 3.4% but noted that this was positioned at the bottom of the label in a relatively small font size which meant that it did not particularly stand out. Juxtaposed above this, there were prominent images of fruits with the words ‘lemon, grapefruit and pineapple’ set on a white background. The Panel noted that the rest of the label was fairly minimalistic with a yellow and blue background which meant that the fruit imagery and flavour references were the dominant theme on the front of the can. The Panel noted that fruit flavours were commonly found in soft drink beverages and that such soft drinks often employed a heavy use of fruit imagery on the front of pack to convey their fruit-based nature. Therefore, due to the label’s strong similarity to a soft drink, the Panel considered that it was incumbent on the packaging to make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to avoid any potential consumer confusion.
The Panel considered the company’s response which highlighted that the words ‘brewing’ and ‘beer’ were included on the front label. However, the Panel considered the presentation of the word ‘beer’, which was written in a dark yellow fine line italicised font on a lighter yellow background, made the text particularly difficult to read. Furthermore, because the word blended into the edges of the line pattern on the label, it was not immediately obvious or clear that the text was there. Therefore, on balance, the Panel considered that while the front label included the word ‘beer’ and the product’s ABV, the word ‘beer’ was not clearly presented, nor was the ABV or beer descriptor given the prominence required on a label which was predominantly focused on fruit-flavours and bore resemblance to a soft drink.
The Panel then considered the side of the can and noted the inclusion of text which described the flavour of the drink. While the text included some references to the brewing process, the majority of the text described the drink’s fruity and floral flavour with no specific mention of beer or alcohol. The Panel assessed the back label and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, a pregnancy warning logo, unit content and the word ‘beer’ written in multiple languages. However, these were not particularly prominent and further best practice information such as a responsible drinking message, the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking guidelines and signposting to Drinkaware were absent from the label.
When discussing the company’s response, the Panel noted that the company had highlighted the Yonder Pink Lemonade precedent a few times to emphasise the similarity in a case where a child had mistakenly consumed an alcoholic drink and which it believed the Panel had concluded that the labelling was sufficient regardless. The Panel sought to clarify that while Yonder Pink Lemonade had not been found in breach of Code rule 3.2(h), it had been found in breach of Code rule 3.1 for not communicating its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1 which stated that where there were multiple negative alcohol cues on a drink’s packaging, such as fruit flavours and imagery, it may need to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature and to avoid consumer confusion. In this instance, the Panel was also mindful that there was evidence of consumer confusion where an under-age individual had mistakenly consumed the product due to its perceived similarity to a well-known soft drink. The Panel considered the above points and concluded that the emphasis on the drink’s fruit flavour, predominant use of fruit imagery and use of the word ‘Radler’, which also appeared on non-alcoholic drinks, meant that the product needed to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature. The Panel acknowledged that while it was not the intention of the company to obscure the alcoholic nature of the drink, the positive alcohol cues that had been included needed to be enhanced and made clearer to mitigate the risk of consumer confusion. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service.
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld a complaint against Sainsbury’s Tiramisu Rum Liqueur. The complaint was made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1]. Read the full decision here.
The complaint stated that the product had no clear alcohol labelling on the primary packaging and raised concerns that if the swing tag with the product’s alcohol information was removed, it further reduced transparency regarding the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that if the swing tag was removed the overall impression conveyed was not one of any specific drink and therefore the drink’s packaging did have the capacity to mislead as to its alcoholic nature. The Panel discussed that it was not sufficient to include the only clearly presented, positive alcohol cues on a removable swing tag that was likely to be removed after purchase or could be accidentally removed even prior to purchase. The Panel noted that the mandatory information that had been embossed in gold lettering, on a gold-cork lid was not particularly distinguishable or visible. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The producer has taken proactive steps to mitigate the risk of consumer confusion regarding the product’s alcoholic nature when selling through the remaining stock and will no longer be producing the drink in its current form.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Ensuring all important information is clear, visible and not easily removed is vital to make sure the consumer is informed as to the alcoholic nature of a product. If there is any room for confusion or ambiguity then the Panel have little choice but to uphold a complaint, such as they did in this case.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“The product has no clear alcohol labelling and visually resembles an RTD tea, which could mislead consumers about its alcoholic nature. Additionally, if the label is removed after opening, it further reduces transparency regarding the alcohol content, raising additional concerns”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it did not believe that the drink’s packaging was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The company explained that the product communicated its alcoholic nature through the product name, which prominently stated “Tiramisu Rum Liqueur”; a universally recognised indicator of alcohol. The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) was clearly stated as “20% vol 50cl” on the swing tag and the cork was marked as alcoholic. In addition to this, the descriptive text on the rear tag described the product as “a delicious blend of Caribbean rum, dark chocolate and coffee… creating a decadent liqueur”. The company addressed the suggestion that the product resembled a Ready-To-Drink (RTD) tea and stated that this was unsubstantiated. The company highlighted that the packaging format featured a glass, faceted bottle with a cork-style stopper and gold foiling which was not typical of RTD teas. The company stated this premium styling reflected a high-quality liqueur rather than a casual soft drink. Furthermore, the product was exclusively merchandised within the alcohol section, both in-store and online, reinforcing its alcoholic nature.
The company addressed concerns about the removable swing tag and explained whilst the swing tag was removable, the cork was permanently labelled with the product name “Tiramisu”, the alcoholic descriptor “Rum Liqueur” and “20% ABV” which ensured that the alcoholic nature remained clear. The company stated that further required information was presented on the swing tag at the point of sale and ensured that the product complied with labelling regulations.
As part of its response, the company shared a view from Oxfordshire County Council, the Primary Authority for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd. Oxfordshire Trading Standards (OTS) stated that its relationship with Sainsbury’s was to provide advice regarding the interpretation of Trading Standards legislation, in particular in relation to this matter, areas that covered Food Standards and Fair Trading, including misleading products. OTS confirmed that it had reviewed the complaint and that in its view the product complied with the Food Information to Consumers Regulations (1169/2011) which permitted mandatory food information to appear on a swing tag. OTS highlighted that the product was correctly labelled with the name of the food and its ABV and that its presentation was not misleading in any way. Addressing the other element of the complaint, OTS explained that the bottle design, a high-quality glass with a cork lid, clearly indicated an alcoholic product, not an RTD tea. The view provided by OTS concluded that the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and did not breach the Portman Group’s Code.
The company concluded that the Tiramisu Rum Liqueur complied with the Portman Group’s Code by clearly communicating its alcoholic nature and did not resemble a non-alcoholic drink. The company requested the complaint be reconsidered and expressed confidence in its compliance while remaining open to constructive dialogue.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1 which stated that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014. However, the Panel also noted that guidance stipulated that compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1. The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code under the absolute clarity requirement if, in the Panel’s view, it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Panel considered the packaging and noted that the bottle employed a novel design, with textured clear glass and a geometric pattern vertically displayed on one side. The Panel noted that aside from the vertical geometric design, there was nothing else printed on the bottle and it was void of any alcohol-related information on the glass. Instead, the Panel noted that the product’s alcohol health-related information only appeared on a swing tag which included signposting to the Drinkaware website, unit content information, pregnancy warning, the Chief Medical Officers’ Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines and a responsible drinking message. The Panel assessed the swing tag in more detail and noted that it was attached to the bottle with string and displayed a “to” and “from” inside which gave the impression it was a gift tag. The Panel discussed that if the drink was given as a gift, it was likely that the tag would be removed and discarded so that a consumer could peel off the protective plastic wrapper to open the product and that this was also compounded by the cultural assumption that most people would remove a gift tag before using a gift. Furthermore, the elasticated string meant that the swing tag could be easily pulled over the drink’s neck and as it was not securely fastened could easily be removed, intentionally or accidentally, in a home or retail environment. The Panel discussed two comparable precedent cases, Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur and Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur, and noted that in its previous decisions it had concluded that swing tag labels which were easily removable could cause confusion as to the alcoholic nature of the drink if that information was not clearly repeated on the primary packaging.
With that in mind, the Panel then assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel noted that the drink was sealed with a large cork stopper which had the words “Rum Liqueur” and “20% vol” printed on it. The Panel discussed that the text was embossed onto the golden lid in a light gold text colour and noted that the lack of contrast in the colours meant that it was difficult to read, was not particularly prominent and was not contrasting enough to catch someone’s attention. The Panel further noted that the lid of a drink was not in a field of vison a consumer would normally expect to find alcoholic cues. The Panel discussed that consumers would turn a product around to look at a product in the round when assessing its alcoholic nature but considered that the top and bottom of a product were not typically places where a consumer would expect to find important information regarding a product’s alcoholic nature and that this became more pertinent when a removable swing tag contained the only clear, positive alcohol cues.
The Panel discussed the complainant’s view that the product appeared to be an RTD tea but considered that there was no additional language on the product which supported this assertion or any flavouring that referenced tea. The Panel noted that if the swing tag were removed the overall impression conveyed was not one of any specific drink.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response and noted the producer’s point that the product was exclusively merchandised within the alcohol section, both in-store and online, which in the producer’s view enforced the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the remit of the Code applied solely to product packaging, irrespective of how a product was retailed and considered that ultimately the product would end up in the home-environment as most products in the off-trade would. The Panel also discussed the view provided from Oxfordshire Trading Standards which formed part of the producer’s response. The Panel sought to remind producers that compliance with the law was not always indicative of compliance with Code rule 3.1 and the wording requirement of ‘absolute clarity’. The Panel encouraged producers to carefully consider how a product’s alcoholic nature was communicated and that the minimum requirements in law were not always sufficient under the Code when there was the possibility that a consumer could be misled as to a product’s alcoholic nature if important information was provided on a removable gift tag and further mandatory information was not clearly visible in an unconventional place. The Panel further noted that this position was consistent with precedent that had been established in previous cases regarding Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur and Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur.
Taking this into account, the Panel concluded that in its view, the drink’s packaging did have the capacity to mislead as to the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel considered that it was not sufficient to include the only clearly presented, positive alcohol cues on a removable swing tag that was likely to be removed after purchase or could be accidentally removed even prior to purchase. As established in previous precedent, the Panel noted that if a product incorporated a removable swing tag it should repeat important alcohol-related information on primary packaging in a clear and legible manner. However, in this case, the Panel noted that this mandatory information had been embossed in gold lettering, on a gold-cork lid which it considered was an unconventional place where consumers would not typically seek such important information and that this was not particularly distinguishable or visible in its presentation. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
The product has been discontinued
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld complaints against two products identified by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1].
The complaints made were against Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA and Origin Wine Stellenbosch’s Fuzzy Duck Chardonnay.
Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA
The Panel found that Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA was in breach of Code Rule 3.2(h) whereby a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel considered the product’s design and considered representations from the producer, which stated that its intention was to create a design that celebrated femininity in the craft beer industry. Whilst the Panel acknowledged the intention to create a feminine beer label in a sector that often predominately used masculine artwork it considered in this case that the combination of the image of tattooed dogs, doodles, personified sun and moon, the pale pastel pink, alongside the handwritten signed name meant that the overall impression conveyed was very similar to a diary or notebook of a teenager. The Panel concluded that on that basis, while unintended, the cumulative impact of the design would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company has informed the Panel that the product is no longer in circulation and will make future changes in line with the Panel’s decision. The full decision can be read here.
Fuzzy Duck Chardonnay
The Panel found Fuzzy Duck Chardonnay to be in breach of two Code Rules. The first, 3.2(f) whereby 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. The second, 3.2(h) a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Under 3.2 (f) the Panel considered, that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Fuzzy Duck’ the drinking game was sufficiently well known and that most consumers would recognise the link between the drink’s name and the game. The Panel expressed concern that any reference to a drinking game in alcohol marketing was unacceptable because of the strong association with intoxication and drunkenness. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption, and the complaint was upheld.
Under 3.2(h) the Panel took all elements of the product’s label and packaging into account and concluded that the inclusion of a large-eyed, smiling, rubber duck, which would be recognised by younger children as a bathtime toy meant that the packaging would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel sought to remind producers that the inclusion of any children’s toy on packaging would be unacceptable under the Code regardless of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. Accordingly, the Panel also found the product in breach of Code rule 3.2(h).
Upon receiving notification of the complaint, the UK importer, Tesco Stores Ltd, has informed the Portman Group that the product will no longer be imported into the UK. The full decision can be read here.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Whilst in these cases, it seems that these producers did not intend to appeal to under-18s, they underline why it is vital that producers consult the Code of Practice and whenever possible use the Portman Group’s free Advisory Service when designing their labels and packaging to ensure they do not cross the line of acceptability. Any reference to a recognised drinking game is likely to be unacceptable under the code.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended