INTRODUCTION
On September 16, 2025, the webinar “Banning alcohol marketing is not an illusion: Lessons from countries in Europe with effective policies to restrict alcohol marketing” took place. Four speakers, invited by the Dutch Collaborative Health Funds (SGF) and EUCAM from Norway, France, Lithuania, and Turkey shared insights about their national policies. The main topics included: legislation on alcohol advertising, political support for restrictions, policy implementation, and the effectiveness of current measures.
NORWAY – STIG ERIK SØRHEIM, HEAD OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEPARTMENT AT ACTIS (NORWEGIAN POLICY NETWORK ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS)
Norway’s alcohol advertising policy is the oldest presented and perhaps the most inspiring. As Stig Erik explained: 50 years of experience with a total ban on alcohol advertising. The policy was introduced in 1975, a few months before the tobacco advertising ban. At that time, advertising was still nascent, and the media landscape was relatively simple. To understand Norway’s current alcohol policy, it is important to outline the historical context. Between 1916 and 1927, Norway experienced a period of national prohibition. Even after prohibition ended, alcohol policy remained strict: a state monopoly on retail sales of wine and spirits, strict licensing for bars and restaurants, high excise taxes, and random sobriety checks. Many municipalities further restricted sales locally, making alcohol unavailable in numerous towns. Advertising alcohol seemed inconsistent with the broader goal of reducing consumption. Another reason for the ban was to protect youth and people with alcohol problems.
The law defines alcohol advertising as “mass communication for marketing purposes,” making it applicable to new and future media forms. Even advertising for 0.0% non-alcoholic drinks (so-called alibi advertising) is prohibited if a significant portion of the audience associates the brand with alcoholic beverages. This is not a measurable threshold; courts decide case by case. Therefore, separate brand names for 0.0% beers exist, which can be advertised.
A major challenge is enforcement on social media. The law prohibits all content initiated by the alcohol industry, but social media creates gray areas, especially with influencers or barter deals. Since September 2024, the Public Health Directorate can impose fines immediately for violations, whereas previously fines were only issued for repeated offenses. Despite calls to modernize the law, politicalsupport for the ban remains strong. Overall, the total ban offers clear advantages: comprehensive protection across all media, clear rules with few loopholes, and relatively low per capita alcohol consumption (7.2 liters of pure alcohol in 2020). While it is hard to prove the ban’s direct impact, research shows a link between exposure to alcohol advertising and consumption.
FRANCE – KARINE GALLOPEL-MORVAN, PROFESSOR SOCIAL MARKETING AT EHESP SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Karine explained the origins and recent developments of La loi Évin (Évin Law). The law lists media platforms where alcohol advertising is allowed: newspapers and magazines aimed at adults, radio during limited hours (00:00–17:00 on weekdays, 00:00–07:00 on Wednesdays), brochures, and outdoor billboards. Initially, billboards were only allowed near production sites, but now they are permitted everywhere. Since 2009, online advertising is also allowed. Advertising through media not on this list (TV, cinema, festivals, sports sponsorship) is prohibited. This approach forces new platforms to be added explicitly, requiring lengthy lobbying by the alcohol industry. For health organizations, this system is preferable if a total ban is not yet in place. Ads may only refer to product quality and characteristics and must include a health warning: “L’abus de l’alcool est dangereux pour la santé, consommez avec modération” (Alcohol abuse is dangerous for your health; drink in moderation). Initially, no people were allowed in ads, but since 2005, producers, sellers, or bartenders may appear. Although less strict than Norway’s total ban, the Évin Law is among Europe’s toughest. How was this legislation implemented in France, where wine culture is so deeply rooted? It was introduced in response to France’s high alcohol consumption (21.77 liters per capita in 1970). The law supported the government’s policy at the time, which aimed to reduce national alcohol consumption and thereby decrease alcohol-related diseases and deaths. In addition, one of the key arguments was protecting young people from alcohol advertising. The government policy proved effective: By 2020, consumption dropped to 10.4 liters, mainly due to reduced wine intake.Over time, lobbying led to several relaxations, the latest in 2016, allowing ads for drinks linked to cultural or regional heritage. These changes made the law more complex, which the industry uses to argue for further relaxation. Research shows that neutral ads (bottle and logo only) are less appealing to adolescents than non-neutral ads (with parties, sports, or celebrities). Enforcement on social media remains difficult.
LITHUANIA – NIJOLE GOSTAUTAITE MIDDTUN, PRESIDENT OF THE ‘TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL CONTROL COALITION’
Since 2018, Lithuania has enforced a total ban on alcohol advertising as part of WHO “best buy” policies. Other measures include higher taxes, raising the purchase age to 20, and limiting sales points.
Nijole explained the timeline: at several points in history, bans on alcohol advertising were introduced in Lithuania, but all were gradually weakened over time. So how did the 2018 ban come about? The main reasons were the high costs and vulnerability of regulating alcohol advertising, as well as the strong impact that alcohol advertising has on young people. In addition, the political climate was favorable: in 2014, the NordAN policy paper was adopted; in 2016, the political party supporting the alcohol ban won the elections; and the public was largely positive about the ban. This was partly due to targeted promotion of the concept among policymakers, a strong regional focus, and a petition campaign that gathered 160,000 signatures. Furthermore, Lithuanian politicians had already widely accepted that higher alcohol taxes create a win-win situation: alcohol sales decrease, life expectancy increases, and alcohol-related mortality declines, while tax revenues remain stable. The legislation is straightforward: a total ban on alcohol advertising, with exceptions specified in the law. Advertising for 0.0% drinks has not yet Alcohol advertising before the introduction of the Évin law (left) and after the introduction of the Évin law (right), including a health warning 0.0% advertising along the road in Lithuania been addressed. Enforcement is limited but proactive; for example, websites can be blocked on digital media.
Naturally, the alcohol industry strongly opposed the ban. Their arguments mainly focused on
international relations: the ban would restrict access to information, block foreign publications, be unenforceable for foreign media, and leave Lithuania under the influence of Russian language and culture. All these arguments have since been disproven by experience over the past years. The law has proven enforceable, and the violation rate is very low: alcohol producers, sellers, and influencers comply with the total advertising ban in Lithuania, including on social media. Advertising for 0.0% drinks that closely resemble the alcoholic versions of the same brand remains a concern. Data show that further regulation is needed in this area.
TURKEY – SEDEF ERÇETIN GENCOSMANOĞLU, EXECUTIVE MANAGER GREEN CRESCENT SOCIETY
Since 2013, Turkey has had a total ban on alcohol advertising as part of a broader WHO-aligned policy. The goal: reduce youth drinking, prevent harmful use, and lower alcohol-related injuries. The law is strict: no direct or indirect promotion across all channels (TV, radio, cinema, internet, social media), no sponsorship, no use of logos or brand colors, and no discounts or giveaways. Also influencer marketing and product placement are banned.
The introduction of the law was supported by health organizations, educational institutions, and various NGOs. Counterarguments included economic consequences, loss of sponsorship opportunities, and restrictions on commercial freedom. The focus of the measures was clear: health and safety, and this clarity made it possible to gain both political and public support.
While effects are hard to isolate, however, the trend in Turkey is positive: per capita alcohol consumption has declined since 2013. Registered consumption dropped from about 2.0 liters in 2016 to less than 1.7 liters in 2020. The consumption of distilled spirits also decreased. These figures suggest that the combination of measures—advertising restrictions, taxation, and limited sales—has contributed to reducing alcohol consumption.
CONCLUSION
Effective restriction of alcohol advertising in various European countries relies on a number of shared principles. A broad definition of alcohol advertising—such as “mass communication for marketing purposes”—is essential to regulate new and future media formats. The use of separate brand names for 0.0% drinks helps prevent alibi advertising.
A recurring argument in all countries was the protection of young people from alcohol influences. This “child frame” proves effective in generating political and public support. At the same time, social media poses a major enforcement challenge due to the speed and international nature of digital communication.
Finally, political will and clear legislation are crucial: countries with a total ban or a clear legal framework demonstrate that it is possible to effectively restrict alcohol advertising, provided there is sufficient political backing. Adequate enforcement capacity is also a prerequisite for successful implementation