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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT