Club Mirror

    Notice: Undefined variable: category_id in /home/sites/6a/f/fbe7252e19/public_html/index.php on line 340

    Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/sites/6a/f/fbe7252e19/public_html/index.php on line 341
  • TNT Levels - Banner - Aug 26
  • Drans Pulling Power BANNER - both - 27.2.26
  • Sky Start of Season Banner - 24.7.26
  • Club Control Banner - 8.11.23
  • Jobs CM Banner - 4.6.26
  • Gemini Parking Header - 19.2.25
  • GK - Banner Ad (not CJ)  - 28.10.25
  • Dransfields Comm to Clubs Banner Jan 26 - 26.1.26
  • Dransfields DART SHARK Banner - 28.10.25
Image for Complaints against AU Vodka products not upheld

Complaints against AU Vodka products not upheld

Complaints made by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association against AU Vodka Bubblegum and AU Vodka GOAT have not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decisions are available here and here.

A complaint was made about AU Vodka Bubblegum under three Code rules which raised concerns that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, did not clearly display its alcoholic nature, and that text on the product implied it could aid social success and popularity (Code rules 3.1, 3.2(e), 3.2(h)). 

The Panel examined the product and noted there were several positive alcohol cues on the front and back label which included a responsible drinking messaging, the product’s ABV, a pregnancy warning, Drinkaware signposting and the unit content per container and serve. The Panel considered that while the brand was positioned as a premium product, there was nothing on the product packaging which suggested that consumption of the drink could help a consumer’s social success or popularity. Regarding particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that the presentation of the name, and its reference to a confectionary item, was close to the line of acceptability under the Code. However, given that the text was used as part of a minimalistic design which did not incorporate any other elements that could have a particular appeal to under-18s, such as use of cartoon imagery, the Panel concluded that the presentation of the product’s flavour was not strong enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel did not uphold any aspect of the complaint.

AU Vodka GOAT

The complaint about AU Vodka GOAT was raised on the grounds that the product suggested it had therapeutic qualities and was linked to treatment for alcohol use disorder.

The complainant stated that there were two understandings of the term GOAT; the first relating to treatment for alcohol use disorder and the second as an abbreviation for ‘Greatest Of All Time’. AU Vodka stated that it had intended the latter understanding and that this definition was well known by consumers. The Panel noted that there was nothing on the packaging or accompanying marketing which suggested that the drink could be used as part of a treatment for alcohol use disorder. The Panel agreed that it was more likely that consumers would understand the abbreviation as standing for ‘Greatest Of All Time’ and that there was no suggestion by the product, or accompanying marketing which implied that drinking the product would improve someone’s mood, behaviour or physical/mental capabilities. Therefore, the Panel concluded there was no breach of the Code and did not uphold the complaint.

Commenting on the decisions, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Time and again the Panel considers the overall impression conveyed by product packaging and in these cases it was the crux of the decisions for both. When portraying flavour, it is fair the styling can be reflected in the typography, however extra care must be taken to ensure that when a product is sweet flavoured, there are no other elements on the packaging which could have a particular appeal to under-18s. Equally, it is important to ensure that a name with a dual meaning is marketed with the appropriate intention so that it is not misconstrued. In these cases, AU Vodka has ensured that the overall impression of Bubblegum Vodka and GOAT were compliant with the Code”.

Commenting on the decisions, Head of Legal at Au Vodka, Dylan Withanage, said: “We appreciate the Panel's thorough review of our Au Vodka Bubblegum and Au Vodka GOAT products. We are pleased that the Panel has upheld our position, having found no breach of the Code for either of these two products. We value the Panel's insights and will continue to uphold the Code in our future offerings.”

portmangroup.org.uk

  1. Images provided
  2. A spokesperson is available for interviews upon request.
  3. The Portman Group was formed in 1989. It is the alcohol industry regulator and social responsibility body. It has over 160 Code signatories from producers, retailers and membership bodies.
  4. The Portman Group is funded by 17 member companies: Asahi UK Ltd; Aston Manor Cider; Bacardi; Brown-Forman; Budweiser Brewing Group UK&I; Campari; C&C; Diageo GB; Edrington UK; Heineken UK; Mark Anthony Brands International; Mast-Jäegermeister UK; Molson Coors Beverage Company; Pernod Ricard UK; SHS Drinks; Thatchers’; and Treasury Wine Estates.
  5. The Code of Practice for the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks was first published in 1996. In 2021, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Code. The Code seeks to ensure that alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable. The Code has helped create an industry that works effectively within the context of a self-regulatory model, while encouraging design, innovation and creativity. This has been done in an effective, responsive and inexpensive way.
  • Effectively – over 170 products have been amended or removed from the market. Many hundreds more have been helped to adhere to the Code before appearing on shelves through the support of the Advisory Service;
  • Responsively – there have been five updates to the Code over 25 years responding to changes in public attitudes and expanding its reach; all without recourse to Government or Parliamentary time;
  • Inexpensively – the leading members of the industry are currently funding the model for all to be protected at no cost to the public purse.

More articles