ILNews

Indiana among 20 states joining ‘Four Loko’ settlement

IL Staff
March 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A maker of caffeinated alcoholic beverages including such brands as “Four Loko” accused of marketing its products to promote the misuse of alcohol and appeal to underage drinkers has settled a complaint brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and joined by 19 other state attorneys general, including Indiana’s Greg Zoeller.

Under the settlement agreement between the AGs and drink maker Phusion Projects LLC, Phusion shall not:

•    Promote the misuse of alcohol;
•    Promote mixing flavored malt beverages with products containing caffeine;
•    Manufacture, market, sell or distribute any caffeinated alcoholic beverages;
•    Provide to wholesalers, distributors or retailers promotional materials for caffeinated alcoholic beverages or materials that promote mixing flavored malt     beverages with products containing caffeine;
•    Sell, offer for sale, distribute or promote alcoholic products to underage persons;
•    Hire underage persons to promote alcoholic products;
•    Hire models or actors for its promotional materials who are under the age of 25 or who appear to be under the age of 21;
•    Promote flavored malt beverages on school or college property, except at retail establishments licensed to sell alcoholic products;
•    Use names, initials, logos, or mascots of any school, college, university, student organization, sorority, or fraternity in Phusion’s promotional materials for its alcohol products; or
•    Distribute, sell, provide, or promote merchandise bearing the brand name or logo of flavored malt beverages to underage persons.  

The settlement also includes a payment of $400,000 from Phusion to be shared among the states signing the settlement. Along with Four Loko, Phusion also markets brands such as Four and Four MaXed, according to the settlement.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT