The French Évin Law: Towards Greater Freedom for Alcoholic Beverage Packaging and Product Names?

Caroline Bouvier, Partner and Manon Joly, Associate 

Is the packaging of an alcoholic product an advertising medium subject to the restrictions imposed by the Évin Law? This was one of the fundamental questions recently answered in the negative by the French Supreme Court in a decision handed down on 20 January 2026. The Court also addressed whether the product name “Levrette” could be regarded as one of the items of information permitted under Article L. 3323-4 of the French Public Health Code, notwithstanding its potentially suggestive connotations.

Rather than signalling a general relaxation of the Évin Law, however, the Supreme Court adopted a strictly textual interpretation of Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code, refusing to extend the statutory restrictions beyond their express wording.

A decade of uncertainty over the reclassification of packaging as an advertising medium

To understand the significance of this new direction in case law, it is necessary to consider the path that led to it. Since the Carlsberg case, decided by the Paris Court of Appeal in 2016, a consistent line of case law had held that packaging constituted an advertising medium. Because packaging influences consumers’ choices when selecting between competing products, courts considered that it was subject to the same requirements of informational neutrality as any other advertising medium. This analysis was subsequently reiterated on numerous occasions, whether in relation to 8.6 beer in 2017, “Buuuuud” beer in 2022, or the “Chamère” beverage associated with the series Emily in Paris in 2024.

Packaging is not an advertising medium

The Levrette case was, to say the least, particularly likely to test the judges’ assessment of public decency. Beer Market marketed its beer under a brand featuring provocative sexual slogans and rabbit mascots, thereby seeking to associate alcohol consumption with sexuality and appeal to a young audience.

Following proceedings brought by the French association called “Association Addictions France”, the company was fined €50,000 by the Paris Court of Appeal, which held that, because the packaging was used for advertising purposes, it fell within the scope of the restrictions laid down in Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code.

The Supreme Court rejected that line of reasoning, relying on the wording of the provision itself:

“Having regard to Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code:

6. It follows from the third paragraph of that provision that the packaging of an alcoholic beverage may be reproduced in advertising only if it complies with the first paragraph, which exhaustively lists the information permitted in advertising authorised for such beverages.
7. It follows that such packaging is not, in itself, subject to the provisions of the first paragraph.” 

On a strict reading of this provision, the third paragraph only requires packaging to comply with the permitted information requirements set out therein when it is reproduced in advertising material. It follows that, where there is no such reproduction, packaging is not subject to the restrictions laid down in that provision.

The decision should therefore not be understood as endorsing or validating the content of alcohol packaging. It merely confirms that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, such content does not come within the ambit of Article L. 3323-4 unless the packaging is reproduced in advertising.

Beyond the issue of packaging, the decision also provides important guidance on the scope of the information expressly permitted under Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code, particularly as regards the product name.

The  product name: from promotional scrutiny to authorised factual information

The decision’s second significant contribution concerns the treatment of the product’s name itself. The Paris Court of Appeal had prohibited the use of the term “Levrette” on the company’s website, on the ground that the name had been chosen precisely for its sexual connotations and its ability to attract a young audience and did not fall within any of the categories of information exhaustively permitted under Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code.

The Supreme Court rejected this line of reasoning. It pointed out that Article L. 3323-4 expressly permits the mention of the product name and that “Levrette”, the name under which the beverage is actually marketed, constitutes precisely such a designation. However evocative a name may be, it remains informational in nature where it serves to identify the product. The Supreme Court therefore focused on the identifying function of the product name rather than on its semantic or promotional connotations. The Supreme Court thus adopted a strict legal approach, rejecting any subjective assessment of the sign’s morality.

This reasoning marks a departure from the approach previously adopted by the courts, which had tended to consider that the registration of a trademark did not, by itself, authorise its promotional use in connection with an alcoholic beverage. In particular, in the “Buuuuud” case referred to above, the Paris Court of Appeal held that “the registration of a trademark does not, by itself, authorise its use for advertising purposes, which must comply with the provisions of the French Public Health Code, the infringement of which may constitute, as in the present case, a manifestly unlawful disturbance.”

The Levrette case adopts a different reasoning by recognising that the use of a product name, even where it may be evocative, falls within the category of information expressly permitted by Article L. 3323-4 of the French Public Health Code.

Practical implications for alcoholic beverage companies

For market players in the alcoholic beverage sector, this decision provides a welcome degree of legal certainty:

• Packaging, as such, does not fall within the restrictions imposed by the Évin Law unless it is reproduced in advertising material.  
• A product name may be used in advertising material and on the brand’s website where it corresponds to the name under which the product is marketed, even if it has evocative connotations. 

Caution is nevertheless warranted: the Supreme Court is not giving free rein to creative marketing strategies. Although packaging may escape classification as advertising, its reproduction on an advertising material must remain strictly compliant with the information permitted under Article L. 3323-4 of the French Public Health Code.

The decision may also prompt a shift in the legal grounds on which such naming strategies are challenged. If the public health framework now offers fewer grounds for challenging provocative product names, future disputes may turn to trademark law as an alternative legal basis for doing so. Compliance with public policy and morality requirements could therefore become the next point of friction.

More broadly, the decision illustrates the French Supreme Court’s willingness to preserve the public health objectives of the Évin Law while refusing to extend its restrictions beyond the wording enacted by Parliament. 

The final contours of this decision will nevertheless depend on how the Court of Appeal hearing the case on remand applies the Supreme Court’s interpretation, and on whether future decisions confirm the practical scope of this distinction between permitted product identification and prohibited advertising practices.