Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Three ads for Au Vodka Ltd:
a. A TikTok post by Lucinda Strafford, a social media influencer, seen on 18 June. During the video, a large gold coloured vending machine which featured the Au Vodka logo was delivered to her house. When the vending machine had been delivered, Ms Strafford was shown filling the machine with cans of Au Vodka Juicy Peach, and using the vending machine for the first time. She took a sip from one of the cans of drink, and said, “That is so good”.
Accompanying text read “an actual DREAM OMG [hearts emoji] [peach emoji] unlimited Juicy Peach cans [smiling face with tears emoji] & I can keep it?! @Au Vodka ad”.
b. A paid-for Facebook post, seen on 10 June. The ad included a video of the influencer Kai Cenat opening a box containing a bottle of Au Vodka, labelled “Kai Cenat Juicy Peach”, and a glass. He said, “Au Vodka! Who’s sending me liquor through the mail? Kai Cenat Juicy Peach.” He was shown opening the bottle, and drinking from the glass.
Accompanying text read “Haven’t Tried Au Vodka Yet? Secure The Taste Of The Summer, Au Vodka Juicy Peach [peach emoji] Essences of summer in every sip. [palm tree emoji] Shop Now Pay Later Available [credit card emoji’”.
c. A paid-for Facebook post, seen on 30 April. The post featured a video of a woman holding a drink. She said, “You need to try this”. She showed a bottle of Au Vodka Juicy Peach to the camera before pouring it into the glass. She said, “Time for the taste test” and was shown taking a drink before saying “Wow”. Superimposed text read “AU VODKA’S NEW FLAVOUR + FANTA PEACH IS UNMATCHED”.
Accompanying text read “PAYDAY Site-Wide Sale + Extra 20% Off [mind blown emoji] Use Code PAYDAY20 [dollars emoji] Shop Now, Pay Later Available [credit card emoji]”.
Issue
The ASA received one complaint.
- The complainant challenged whether ad (a) was inappropriately targeted at people under 18 years of age.
- The ASA challenged whether ads (b) and (c) breached the Code because they featured someone who was, or seemed to be, under 25 years of age.
Response
1. Au Vodka stated that Lucinda Strafford was a well-known reality TV personality from the TV series Love Island. They said she was over the age of 25, and provided a screenshot of her audience demographics on TikTok, which they believed demonstrated that all of Ms Strafford’s TikTok followers were aged 18 or over.
They stated that ad (a) had also been promoted on Facebook and Instagram with specific targeting filters. These included past purchasers of Au Vodka’s products, who were required to confirm they were over the age of 18 at purchase, and individuals with an interest in the Love Island 2025 TV series, which had a primary audience of people aged 16 to 34. An overriding age filter restricted the content to individuals aged 18 and over.
Au Vodka believed that Ms Strafford’s association with Love Island was relevant, as the TV show aired post-watershed in the UK, when programming was aimed at mature and adult audiences. They stated the ad was designed for a general adult audience and did not contain any themes or visual elements that were likely to be of particular appeal to under 18s. They believed that the content was appropriately targeted, and had not been placed in any medium where more than 25% of the audience could reasonably be expected to be under 18.
Lucinda Strafford’s management agency provided the same screenshot which showed a breakdown of her followers on TikTok by age group.
2. Au Vodka stated that ad (b) had location targeting applied to deliver the ad to audiences in the US. They said that whilst it may have been possible that a small number of individuals based in the UK would have seen the post (for example, a UK resident who had recently been to the US), those situations were rare and fell outside of their intended paid-for targeting strategy. They acknowledged that Kai Cenat was 23 years old, but stated that this was compliant with advertising laws in the US, where they had intended the ad to be seen.
Au Vodka acknowledged that the individual featured in ad (c) was 24 years old at the time the ad appeared, and that ad (c) was therefore in breach of the CAP Code. They stated her inclusion in the ad was an oversight, and that they had taken steps to enforce stricter internal compliance checks in future. Ad (c) had since been taken down.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that ads for alcoholic drinks or ads that featured or referred to alcoholic drinks must not be directed at people under 18 years of age through the selection of media or the context in which they appeared. It also stated that no medium should be used to advertise alcoholic drinks if more than 25% of its audience was under 18 years of age. We therefore expected to see evidence that Au Vodka had taken appropriate steps to limit the likelihood of children or young people seeing their ads.
Ad (a) featured the influencer Lucinda Strafford, and was posted on her TikTok account. The ASA understood that the minimum age required to create a TikTok account was thirteen. Au Vodka and Ms Strafford’s management agency provided a screenshot which showed the largest proportion of her followers on TikTok (50.9%) were aged 18 to 24, followed by those aged 25 to 34. However, the screenshot did not include data for any followers aged between 13 and 17. Because the proportion of under-18s who followed Ms Strafford’s account was not included, we could not take the data about her followers into account and therefore could not be certain of the proportion of her followers who were under 18.
We noted that TikTok’s advertising policy prohibited ads for alcohol products in the UK. Because of that, TikTok did not offer support or specific tools to advertisers to accommodate or target such ads. Consequently, it was not possible to exclude under-18s from viewing the ad. We also understood that it was possible for posts from a TikTok account to be seen by users who did not follow that account. When opening the TikTok app, we understood the first page users saw was the “For You Page”. This page was algorithmically driven, and users would therefore see content from accounts that they did not follow but were likely to be of interest to them. We understood that Ms Strafford had appeared on the popular reality TV series Love Island. In the context of the targeting of their paid-for Meta advertising, Au Vodka had acknowledged that those with an interest in Love Island were primarily aged between 16 and 34, and they had used an age filter to restrict their content to those aged over 18. We considered overall that the TV series was popular with young people, including under 18s, and that a number of individuals who were under the age of 18 with TikTok accounts were therefore likely to interact with content related to Love Island on the platform. Even if those individuals did not follow Ms Strafford, we considered it was likely that the algorithm would determine her posts to be of interest to them, meaning they would appear in their “For You” page.
We acknowledged that Au Vodka had provided information about the targeting of versions of ad (a) that appeared on Facebook and Instagram. However, we considered that the targeting of the ad on other platforms was not relevant to whether the targeting of the ad on TikTok was appropriate. In the absence of specific targeting tools and relevant demographic data being provided, and in view of the way in which users engaged with TikTok, we concluded that insufficient care had been taken to ensure that ad (a) was not directed at people under the age of 18. It therefore breached the Code.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 18.15 (Alcohol).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that people shown drinking or playing a significant role in ads for alcoholic drinks must not be, or seem to be, under 25 years of age.
Ad (b) featured the influencer Kai Cenat, who we understood was 23 years old, opening a parcel containing a bottle of Au Vodka Juicy Peach, and drinking the product. We acknowledged Au Vodka’s assertion that the ad had been targeted to audiences in the US and that they had not intended for it to be seen by consumers in the UK. However, at the time the ad was seen by the ASA, it was visible to consumers who had their location set to “Great Britain”, and was therefore required to comply with the CAP Code. Because the ad featured an individual who was under the age of 25, we concluded that ad (b) breached the Code.
Ad (c) featured a young woman who appeared to be under the age of 25 making and consuming a drink that contained Au Vodka Juicy Peach. Au Vodka confirmed that the individual in the ad was 24 years old. We therefore concluded that ad (c) breached the Code.
On that point, ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 18.16 (Alcohol).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Au Vodka Ltd to ensure that their future ads were appropriately targeted and were not directed at people under 18 years of age. We also told them to ensure their ads did not feature individuals who were, or appeared to be, under 25 years of age.
