Dr. Bower attempted to buy and later did buy Pink IPA from Brewdog, but was not allowed to do so because he looked male.

As they maintained this criterion that negatively impacted not only Dr. Bower, but indeed all cis-identified males, are any males entitled to claim against Brewdog Plc until 2024, even though the violative sexist promotional offer is now over?

  • 1
    Can you link to any articles detailing this case?
    – hszmv
    Jan 18, 2023 at 16:53
  • @hszmv of course. casemine.com/judgement/uk/5d133cf52c94e0558cd6842d Jan 18, 2023 at 17:05
  • Why is this tagged statute-of-limitations?
    – user35069
    Jan 18, 2023 at 17:48
  • In the interest of providing constructive feedback to accompany a DV, "any males" is a HUGE category and class of victim for an act that has very specific temporal and geographic limits, as well as a documented workaround. A better wording would inquire into what might constitute legal standing to bring additional lawsuits against Brewdog. (and as I type this, my answer is censored...) Jan 18, 2023 at 18:21
  • 1
    I guess you have to claim damages as well. If you can buy this beer in any other colour can, and there is no obligation to the company to make any pink cans, then I can see very little grounds for damages. A small claims court felt otherwise. I don't agree.
    – gnasher729
    Jan 19, 2023 at 12:39

1 Answer 1


My read of the decision is that it would be only the subset of males who:

A.) Ordered Pink IPA during the promotional period it was available


B.) were under no other restrictions (i.e. Legal Drinking Age, Ban from premises for prior behavior, lack of stock)


C.) meets at least one of the following two criteria:

1.) Were refused the sale of Pink IPA because of their gender


2.) Were forced to lie about their gender identity in order to buy the beverage

That is providing that the defendant did not successfully appeal the decision to a higher level court and had the decision reversed or overturned. I assume that the date of 2024 is with in the 5 year window for such action to be taken for a civil suit, however, I am unfamiliar with British Law's rules on that matter. In the U.S. the cut off is 1 year from date of incident OR the date plaintiff became aware of the cause for the suit. If the later, they would certainly have to show evidence that they were only aware of the illegal behavior after the fact. I do believe that finding a case where one made the complaint in a timely manner and suceeded is not sufficient for this matter, and they would have to demonstrate that they had no clue the behavior was a violation of the law until the later point.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .