The arrival of pre-mix brands such as Smirnoff Ice, Skyy Blue, Bacardi Silver and Jack Daniel's Hard Cola on the US market in the last few years has led to increasing concern about the attraction of such products to underage drinkers. While most of these products differ from their European counterparts in that they are malt rather than spirit-based (despite the names), they are nonetheless alcoholic beverages, and as such should not be targeted at young people.
But that is exactly what they have been, at least according to a lawsuit filed yesterday targeting Bacardi, Kobrand, which markets the Alizé Cognac and fruit juice blend, Brown-Forman, which makes Jack Daniel's premixes, Mark Anthony, the Canadian maker of Mike's Hard Lemonade, and Diageo, owner of Smirnoff Ice. And pre-mix manufacturers are not the only ones criticised - a number of beer groups are also included in the class action: Coors, Heineken and industry association the Beer Institute.
The class action lawsuit, brought by a Washington plastic surgeon Ayman R. Hakki through the law firms of Straus & Boies and Boies, Schiller & Flexner, alleges that the drinks companies in question have carried out a "long-running, sophisticated and deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to children and other under-age consumers".
The lawsuit is seeking compensation from the companies for revenues allegedly earned by sales to minors, and claims that at least 15-20 per cent of all alcoholic beverages sold in the US are consumed by under-age drinkers, accounting for as much as $22.5 billion a year in sales.
Bacardi appears to bear the brunt of the criticism, with the lawsuit stating that much of the company's advertising, for its premix and regular rum brands, was deliberately targeting underage drinkers by appearing in magazines read predominantly by those under 21. Bacardi said the claims were unfounded.
Diageo was criticised not only for Smirnoff Ice but also for its Captain Morgan rum brand, in particular for using the image of 'the Captain' to promote the brand. It said it had always acted responsibly towards underage drinkers and that it would refute the claims.
Coors' sponsorship of films likely to be viewed by people under 21 was also criticised.
Brown-Forman, meanwhile, was criticised for using a young-looking model to advertise its Fontana Candida wine brand in a magazine called Glamour which is "disproportionately read by women and girls under the age of 21". The Louisville-based group said that the model in the ad was over 30, and that 75 per cent of Glamour's readership was over 21, according to Mediamark Research.
The lawsuit has little chance of succeeding, with the alleged deliberate strategy on the part of the drinks industry virtually impossible to prove. While the likelihood is that many of these companies' products are being drunk by underage drinkers (partly due to the fact that the US law on the legal drinking age dates from the Dark Ages) that this is due to a targeted campaign is a fanciful notion.
Young people in the US, as elsewhere, are surrounded by adverts for alcoholic beverages - in magazines and newspapers, on billboards, at most sporting events and, of course, in stores. Even if they wanted to, drinks companies would not have to target young people in particular to get them to drink their products - they are already aware of them.
The problem is, of course, much more complicated. It is much easier to point the finger at the drinks groups over the type of products they make - whether they are deliberately targeted at young people or not, the fact is that alcopops, premixes and premium beers are appealing to them.
And the legislators are also far from blameless. In a US society where alcoholic drinks companies are allowed to sponsor college football teams many of whose members may not be able to drink because of the decision to set the legal drinking age at 21 rather than 18, as in most other 'civilized' countries, is it any wonder that young people are tempted to experiment?
Of course, a lower drinking age does not mean that this problem disappears - the debate in the UK is clear evidence of that - but it does take some of the thrill out of underage drinking and gives the responsibility for it to the drinkers themselves, rather than the industry or the legislators.
A relaxation of this rule - unlikely as it is given the prevailing conservative nature of the US administration - might help take some of the heat out of the issue, but there is no real solution to the problem - at least as long as alcohol producers are allowed to continue making products which people - of all ages - want to drink.