As you may have read on maieb’s beer blog, or indeed, on the BrewDog blog itself, BrewDog’s James Watt and Martin Dickie have employed London solicitors Pitmans to demand a retraction and apology from The Portman Group.

You can read the text of the letter via the BrewDog blog link (note to Pitmans: you need to employ a better copywriter, you’ve got some horrendous typos and grammatical errors in there). They’re not actually suing the PG yet, but have threatened to do so if the aforementioned retraction and apology (plus a charitable donation) aren’t forthcoming. The wording they’re objecting to (not unreasonably) is PG spokeman David Poley’s assertion, in connection to the recent Speedball labelling hoo-hah that: “Brewdog is profiteering from the scourge of illegal drugs, mocking the misery caused by misuse.”

In the following press release, the BrewDog boys explain their reasons behind the action, seeking to establish a firm stance on the moral high-ground in the process:

MD James Watt: “This is a David v Goliath battle. It may be unheard of for a brewer to battle an industry regulator this way but we are fighting for the choice and intelligence of consumers.”

Acclaimed global brewers BrewDog has instructed the London office of internationally-renowned lawyers Pitmans to take up a defamation action against beer regulators the Portman Group for recent comments by Chief Executive David Poley about BrewDog and their product Speedball.

The legal action is described as “unprecedented” by BrewDog MD James Watt, who feels the company has to take the stand after the company’s nine-month battle with the regulator, feeling the Portman Group comments are damaging to the business.

The Portman Group recently issued a press statement which stated the alcohol industry watchdog was calling for retailers to no longer stock BrewDog beer Speedball.

The release carried a comment from David Poley, the Portman Group Chief Executive, where he said: “BrewDog is profiteering from the scourge of illegal drugs, mocking the misery caused by the issue.”

Pitmans have now taken up the case on behalf of BrewDog, claiming the comment is defamatory and damaging to the business – especially given that the area the company is based in, Fraserburgh, has been known for having a drug problem in the past.

Award-winning BrewDog is Scotland’s largest independent brewery and has gone from strength to strength in less than two years, gaining a massive following across the globe, securing deals at home to supply Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Oddbins with a range of beers, including Punk IPA. BrewDog currently produces 200,000 bottles a month.

The company is seeking a public apology, a removal of the comments, legal costs and a donation made to an alcohol abuse charity of BrewDog’s choice.

Pitmans’ Dispute Resolution Consultant Oliver Smith said: “The allegations that our clients profit from illegal drugs and mock the misery caused by the misuse (or use) of illegal drugs are untrue and factually inaccurate.

“Our clients sell legal beers and take the issue of illegal drug use seriously. Mr Poley appears to seek to justify his statement on the basis that ‘The blurring of alcohol and illicit drugs fosters unhealthy attitudes to drinking and trivialises drug misuses’.

“This is not a justification for, or legal defence to, these serious allegations against our client – which have and will continue to cause them distress and damage their personal and business reputations.”

BrewDog MD James Watt added: “Drug abuse has been a well-documented and serious problem in Fraserburgh, where we are based, and the surrounding area, so to be accused of profiteering from the misery caused by drugs is not only untrue but something that can negatively affect how people view the business.

“It’s one thing for us to portray ourselves as a couple of fun-loving guys with a company reaching out past the traditional beer drinker, it’s another – and completely beyond the pale – to portray us as profiteering from the scourge of drugs.

“The Portman Group have been fighting with us for nine months now over labeling and marketing – only to drop three of their complaints just before Christmas. Now the complaints may have been dropped but the damage was done in terms of negative publicity and reputation before Portman dropped them.

“We believe in letting adults be adults and make informed choices about the drinks they like and we will not stand by and let the Portman Group feel it can pick on companies because of one word.

“It’s incredibly saddening to think that with all the issues there are with alcohol in UK society, the Portman Group spend months chasing us over this. The Portman Group remains completely toothless in the face of the real issues and problems, which underpin irresponsible alcohol consumption in the UK.

“In a year when we are reaching out to the on-trade sector with casks and kegs available for bars and pubs, we don’t want owners being put off from taking our products because they believe we are profiteering from drugs.”

BrewDog has picked up a string of awards over the last year with the most recent accolade being the Prince’s Scottish Youth Business Trust ‘Young Entrepreneur of the Year’. The company is a success in many countries, including the USA and Sweden.

BrewDog was founded in April 2007 by James Watt and Martin Dickie with the aim of producing good quality beer with all-natural ingredients with no preservatives or additives. Key to their strategy was to promote the brand in a fun, stylish way, far removed from that of the traditional beer market, and with names like Speedball, Tokyo, Paradox, Rip Tide, Trashy Blonde, Punk IPA.

The company is also about to undertake a major expansion with casks and kegs now available, alongside bottles, for the UK on-trade industry.

Maieb thinks everyone should sit down, crack open a few beers, discuss their differences and agree to let bygones be bygones. I rather suspect that BrewDog have scented another publicity opportunity and have gone for the jugular… but to be honest, it makes me a little uneasy. By threatening legal action, aren’t they shifting the battlefield towards the Portman Group’s turf? It’s potentially a bluff that’s easily called, given the likely expense of a protracted legal case, which the PG – with its much deeper, corporately sponsored pockets – can presumably much more easily afford. And I rather fear that this is exactly what will happen next.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but I have a horrible suspicion that the BrewDog boys may actually have just lost the advantage of the moral high-ground. I think I’d have been much happier if they’d stayed on-message: carried on sticking two fingers up at the Portman Group in appropriate punk-rebel style, continued to brew and sell their incredible beers; winning over new fans and supporters through the strength of their high-quality products in the process. This threatening letter business feels like an unwelcome shift in focus, a lowering of BrewDog’s standards to the same sort of public sniping, bickering and bullying that the PG thrives on, indeed, exists to engage in. They definitely have a number of good points and they’re right to make a stand, but I think they were winning over more friends when they were just going about their business and proving the Portman Group wrong than they will do by trying to beat the bullies at their own game.

Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully it won’t backfire on them. Time will tell.

NewsFlash: As per Tandleman’s comment below, seems that BrewDog had already dropped the action the day before I sat down and spent half an hour of my rather precious free time putting this piece together… they just, y’know, neglected to actually announce the change of plan anywhere I might have actually seen it. Like on their own blog… thanks, guys! Ah well, my comments still stand as relevant.