The ruling, issued on 17 April 2026, centres on whether the advertiser could sufficiently prove the accuracy of its calorie claim in line with the Code of Advertising Practice.
At the heart of the dispute was a discrepancy between the claimed calorie count and calculations based on the drink’s alcohol content. The complainant argued that a 300ml beverage with 4.5% alcohol could not plausibly contain only 27 calories. The ARB’s own assessment referenced widely accepted calorie calculation methods, which suggested the drink could contain upwards of 70 calories per can, largely due to the caloric contribution of alcohol.
In its defence, Solstice Seltzer maintained that its nutritional information was based on accredited South African laboratory testing and complied with local regulatory requirements. The company submitted a certificate of analysis from Microchem Lab Services, which indicated an energy value equivalent to roughly 30 calories per 300ml serving, as well as supporting documentation from Cranbrook Flavours outlining calculated nutritional information. It argued that these results validated the on-pack claim and fell within acceptable labelling parameters.
The ARB flagged several issues. These included uncertainty over converting grams to millilitres, the fact that the figure appeared to be calculated rather than directly measured, and that the certificate itself was not fully accredited. Even if accepted, the figure would equate to roughly 30 calories per can — still inconsistent with the advertised 27 calories.
The ARB said the Cranbook document provides calculated nutritional information based on raw ingredients, but it does not give verified calorie values for the final product. It clearly states that these figures are estimates only and cannot be used as the official label for the finished drink. Instead, the final product must be tested in an accredited laboratory to produce accurate, legally compliant nutritional information in line with South African regulations.
The Directorate ultimately concluded that, without independent expert verification, the advertiser had failed to meet the substantiation requirements set out in Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code. As a result, the claim is considered unsubstantiated rather than definitively false, but cannot be used in its current form.
As part of the sanction, Solstice Seltzer has been instructed to withdraw or amend the “27 calories per can” claim and refrain from using it unless new, compliant substantiation is provided and approved. The ARB did not rule on whether the claim was misleading under Clause 4.2.1, noting that this would depend on future substantiation.
