BY ZILLAH BAHAR
A spirit’s label is part checklist, part judgment call. The checklist part is mechanical: is the Government Warning formatted right, is the alcohol content stated, is the class and type correct. Those have right answers. They are quick to confirm, and you don’t need a lawyer for them. The judgment part is the claim: what you actually say about your spirit. Is it truthful, is it substantiated, does it imply something you can’t back up. Those don’t have a clean yes-or-no, and they’re where COLAs get rejected and, occasionally, where brands get into hot water.
A Field Guide to Claims That Get Labels Rejected
Here’s a field guide to the claims that get distilled-spirits labels rejected, and the ones that get a pass.
Age and maturity
TTB has specific rules here (27 CFR 5.74). If you state an age, it must be the youngest spirit in the bottle — not the oldest, not the average. For whiskey under four years old, an age statement is mandatory. The trap is implication: “barrel-aged,” “extra-aged,” a number in the brand name — anything suggesting more time in oak than the liquid actually has. If the wording implies an age you can’t support, that’s a flag.
“Handmade,” “small batch,” “craft,” “artisanal”
None of these are defined by TTB. That’s exactly why they’re risky. You can use them — but if the production reality contradicts the romance (a “handmade” spirit running off an automated column still, a “small batch” that isn’t), you’ve created a misleading impression, which the rules prohibit (27 CFR 5.122). Allowed — but only if they’re true.
Who actually made it?
A big one for craft. If you source your spirit — and plenty of respected brands do — your label can’t imply you distilled what you bought. TTB defines the production statements: “distilled by” means you distilled it, and a bottler who didn’t distill has to use “bottled by” (27 CFR 5.66). Putting “distilled by” on a spirit you sourced rather than made creates a misleading impression about who produced it, which Subpart H prohibits (27 CFR 5.122).
Geographic and origin terms
Some place names are spoken for. Bourbon has to be made in the United States; put “Kentucky” on a bourbon and it must have been both distilled and aged in Kentucky (27 CFR 5.143). Scotch and Cognac are protected as distinctive products of their places of origin under TTB’s standards of identity (27 CFR Part 5, Subpart I) — you can’t borrow the name. “Tennessee Whiskey” is tied to its home too, but through Tennessee state law and trade agreements, not a separate federal standard.
Health, wellness, and “clean”
Two different claims get lumped together here, and TTB treats them differently. First, the therapeutic claim — anything implying the spirit is good for you: “hangover-free,” “lowers blood pressure,” “medicinal.” Health-related statements are restricted under 27 CFR 5.129, and one clears the bar only if it’s truthful, substantiated, properly qualified, and discloses the health risks, which marketing copy almost never does.
Second, the nutrient claim, “low-carb”. These aren’t banned, but they’re conditional: you can call a spirit “low carbohydrate” only if it has no more than 7 grams of carbs per serving (TTB Ruling 2004-1), and the label has to back the number with a Serving Facts statement (TTB Ruling 2013-2). The claim without the data behind it is what gets kicked back.
“Gluten-free”
“Gluten-free” is its own case, and the rule recently shifted in distillers’ favor. Since 2020, TTB allows “gluten-free” even on spirits distilled from wheat, rye, or barley, if good manufacturing practices keep any gluten-containing material out of the finished product (TTB Ruling 2020-2). Distillation strips the gluten; what you can’t do is add it back afterward. The versions that pass are factual and substantiated; the aspirational ones — “clean,” “keto,” good-for-you — are the ones that don’t.
“Smoothest,” “best,” and knocking the other guy
Superlatives and comparative claims that name or imply a competitor invite a challenge, and the prohibition on misleading and disparaging statements (27 CFR 5.122) is what they run into. A medal you won is a fact. “The smoothest rye in America” is an argument.
The mechanical items — warning format, alcohol content, the class-and-type line — have right answers, and they’re quick to confirm. The claims are different. They’re judgment calls, and on a borderline claim the honest answer isn’t “go” — it’s “have someone qualified look at this before it’s on the bottle.”
Sources
27 CFR 5.66 — Name and address (“distilled by” / “bottled by”): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.66
27 CFR 5.74 — Statements of age, storage, and percentage: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.74
27 CFR 5.122 — Misleading statements or representations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.122
27 CFR 5.129 — Health-related statements: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.129
27 CFR 5.143 — Whisky standards of identity (state-name rule): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.143
27 CFR Part 5, Subpart I — Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-5/subpart-I
TTB calorie and carbohydrate labeling guidance (Ruling 2004-1, the 7g “low carbohydrate” threshold): https://www.ttb.gov/news/labeling-advertising-statement
TTB Ruling 2013-2 — Serving Facts statements: https://www.ttb.gov/system/files?file=images/pdfs/rulings/2013-2.pdf
TTB Ruling 2020-2 — gluten content statements: https://www.ttb.gov/laws-regulations-and-public-guidance/rulings/r2020-2
Zillah Bahar spent 20+ years in wine and spirits distribution before founding COLAclear (colaclear.com), a TTB label pre-screening tool for wine, spirits, and beer. She works at the intersection of beverage-alcohol compliance and product and writes quite a lot these days about what sends a COLA back from TTB.