A fine of €1565 for one mistake. Rightly so?

At ONP5 we sell only non-alcoholic beers. That is not only in our name, but in everything we do. For us, <0.5% alcohol is not a limit, it is a principle.

But even with that focus, things can go wrong. And they did.

What happened

A few months ago we ordered a batch of alcohol-free beers from Czech craft brewery Zichovec. One of those beers — tellingly named “Drink and Oops… Nevermind” — turned out to be 0.8% alcohol upon arrival .

The brewer had intended to make an alcohol-free beer, but that did not work out. As a result, this beer did not meet our standard and should actually have been returned immediately.

Our choice: return or sell?

We were faced with a choice:

• Sending the beer back to the Czech Republic, with all the associated transport and environmental impact

• Or sell the beer, with a clear warning that this was the only exception in our range

We chose the latter. From a sustainability and transparency perspective.

We have clearly stated on the product page that this beer contains 0.8% ABV and is different from our offer. No hidden info, no small print.

The offer

Because the expiration date was nearly approaching, we have put the beer on sale from March 1st — just like all our beers that are approaching the best before date — with a 50% discount. Not to get rid of it quickly, but to prevent food waste, something we at ONP5 take seriously.

Phone call from the NVWA

On March 11, we received a phone call from the NVWA (Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority). Based on an anonymous tip, an investigation had been started. The conclusion: we had committed an offense.

In the Netherlands, you are not allowed to offer beers with more than 0.5% alcohol with more than 25% discount . The law does not know any exceptions.

We immediately took the product offline and stopped selling it.

A fine

On May 14th we received the report: a fine of €1565 . According to the NVWA this is a “light” fine, considering the fact that our webshop has less than 50 employees.

We have exercised the right to comment. In this we explained:

• that this was a one-off situation and that the product was immediately removed from sale;

• that we have consciously opted for sustainability and transparency;

• that we did not knowingly break the law, but simply did what we normally do with near-expired stock.

But the fine remained.

What do we think about this?

In fact, the fine is justified. The law is clear: above 0.5% alcohol, you may not give a discount above 25%. We did that – albeit unconsciously.

But in terms of content it feels disproportionate.

• It was about one beer, one time.

• We have transparently labeled the product as an exception.

• We took immediate action when this was brought to our attention.

• And importantly, there has been no risk to public health. No deception, no large-scale distribution, no campaign with stunt offers.

In fact, we tried to prevent food waste by not destroying it unnecessarily.

We understand the importance of clear rules, especially around alcohol. But rules must also be applied with common sense and context. As far as we are concerned, a warning would have sufficed .

What do you think?

Was the NVWA right to impose a fine? Or could this have been done differently?

We are curious about your opinion.