Are regulators scrutinizing the slotting fee loophole for zero-alcohol variants?

Beverage conglomerates are increasingly utilizing a multi-beverage-strategy to achieve B2B retail dominance by exploiting a significant legal loophole: while slotting-fees-beverage-industry are banned for traditional alcohol in many jurisdictions, companies can legally pay these pay-to-play fees for their 0.0% master-brand extensions.

This allows brands to secure prime physical retail space in grocery aisles, which indirectly boosts the master alcohol brand through a halo effect (a form of alibi-marketing).

Open Questions

• Are regulatory bodies like the ttb in the United States or the advertising-standards-authority-asa in the UK beginning to investigate or close this loophole?
• How do regulators differentiate between legitimate trade spend for a non-alcoholic beverage and disguised slotting fees intended to benefit an alcoholic master brand?
• Could the adjacent display of 0.0% variants and traditional soft drinks trigger new emergency rules regarding youth exposure and trade spend?