The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that a series of Absolut Vodka ads featuring Keith Haring's artwork did not breach the CAP Code's prohibition on alcohol ads that are likely to appeal particularly to under‑18s. The decision, published on 10 December 2025, followed a challenge to digital escalator panels, posters and vinyl wall displays in Charing Cross Underground station seen in September 2025, all of which used Haring-inspired visuals tied to Absolut's limited-edition bottle and historic collaboration with the artist. 

The ads included bright, stylised imagery associated with Haring's work: dancing figures rendered in bold coloured lines, a yellow Absolut bottle motif, and the phrase "ABSOLUT HARING." Some executions included video of groups dancing and a cut-out of a painted bottle taken from a Haring artwork. One wall display even incorporated the Charing Cross roundel partially obscured by a dancing figure. A complainant questioned whether such material was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18 years of age. 

Pernod Ricard UK defended the campaign on several grounds. The company argued that Haring is a world‑renowned artist (1958–1990) whose work is primarily recognised by and resonates with adults, noting the largely adult audiences of social media accounts affiliated with the artist. It highlighted the serious social and political themes associated with Haring's oeuvre and positioned the creative as a deliberate nod to nostalgia, recalling Absolut's 1986 collaboration with Haring that yielded bottle‑themed artworks historically used in brand advertising. The advertiser also stressed that the stylised, silhouette‑based design avoids features commonly associated with children's appeal—such as cute anthropomorphic characters, fairy‑tale tropes, exaggerated features or video‑game‑like visuals—and referenced similar artist collaborations, including a 2024 Andy Warhol campaign, that had run without complaint in other markets. 

The ASA assessed the material under CAP Code rule 18.14, which requires that non-broadcast alcohol ads must not be likely to appeal particularly to under‑18s, including by association with youth culture, juvenile behaviour, or characters that might encourage young people to drink. The regulator's key test is whether the content has greater appeal to under‑18s than to adults. 

On the creative itself, the ASA found that, although bold and colourful, the imagery comprised stylised silhouettes and dancing figures that were not childlike in design or execution, were not shown in juvenile or adolescent scenarios, and did not reference youth culture. While some adults might recognise the style as reminiscent of Keith Haring, the ASA considered that children were unlikely to identify or be engaged by the style on that basis. Overall, the imagery would not have greater appeal to under‑18s than to over‑18s. 

The regulator also examined Haring's likely appeal in context. It noted that his work is often linked to adult social and political themes, and that the 1986 Absolut collaboration is not associated with youth culture. Although Haring did engage with children during his lifetime and his imagery has occasionally appeared in collaborations relevant to children, the ASA concluded that—within the context of these ads—neither Haring nor his artwork would be likely to appeal more to under‑18s than to adults. On that basis, the ASA ruled that the ads were not in breach and took no further action. 

This ruling underscores a nuanced approach to the "particular appeal" test for alcohol advertising. Bright colours and stylised graphics do not, by themselves, create under‑18s' particular appeal where the overall execution avoids child‑directed cues, adolescent scenarios, or youth‑culture references and where the creative context, such as a heritage art collaboration, skews towards adults. For alcohol brands, the decision highlights the importance of evidencing the cultural and demographic profile of featured artists, avoiding child‑coded design elements, and situating campaigns within adult‑oriented narratives such as art history and nostalgia. For media owners, it reiterates that transport environments are not determinative; the focus remains on the content and its likely audience appeal under rule 18.14.

Don't forget that the test for broadcast ads is that they must not have strong appeal to under-18s, so there is no balancing act between the appeal for under-18s and over-18s, which makes it easier to fall foul of the BCAP Code. The significance of this distinction is illustrated (sorry) by another ASA decision about a Video on Demand ad for Hendrix Gin, which we wrote about here. That ad featured Victorian-style animation, but being a VOD ad, it was also decided under the non-broadcast CAP Code, and the complaint about it was not upheld.

In short, the ASA found that Absolut's Keith Haring campaign, while visually striking, did not appeal particularly to under‑18s and therefore complied with the CAP Code. The case offers a pragmatic blueprint for responsibly leveraging iconic art in alcohol marketing without crossing the line into youth appeal.