The Irish Government first passed legislation in 2003 to make ‘happy hours’ illegal. Scotland enacted similar legislation in 2005.

In the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, the Irish Oireachtas amended the 2003 legislation to prohibit a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold or supplied, an alcohol product during a limited period at a price less than that being charged for the alcohol product on the day before the commencement of the limited period.

In Scotland, the law requires that alcohol prices for any particular product are required to stay the same for a period of 72 hours.

The rationale for this length of time was that it would be uneconomic for premises to maintain lower prices for the 3-day period.

In 2008, Finland enacted legislation to require the price to remain the same for at least two months. Mass media advertising for short-term discount prices or happy hours was also prohibited. However, the industry responded by having price discounts that extended beyond two months.

The impact of restricting the discounting of alcohol products at off-licences has been studied. Results in the UK showed that annual consumption would fall by 3% in Scotland and 2.8% in England, if a total off-licence discount ban was imposed. The policy was estimated to cost an average of £11 per drinker per year and affected wine prices the greatest. Polices that restricted the percentage of discounting permitted had smaller effects on consumption.

The following countries have implemented restrictions to multi-buy offers:

• In 2008, Finland prohibited offering several packages or servings of alcoholic beverages at a reduced joint price.
• In October 2011 Scotland passed legislation to prohibit multi-buy promotion of alcohol in off-licences, whilst other forms of discounting remained permitted.
• In October 2018, Ireland enacted legislation to prohibit multi-buys (no date currently set for implementation).

Two studies have examined the impact of the Scottish legislation on alcohol consumption. One pre and post implementation study, using household shopping panel data, found no effect of the law on consumption. The other study, utilised aggregated sales data in an interrupted time series design and found the law reduced consumption by 2.6%, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). The differences in the results between the two studies may be due to data collection, with shopping panel data being prone to under-reporting and biases relating to representativeness.

In relation to health outcomes, the Scottish law was shown to have no impact on alcohol-related hospital admissions or deaths.

In response to the Finnish legislation, the alcohol industry reduced the price of a single can of beer so that it equalled the price of beer when sold in larger quantities at a reduced price. This strategy had the effect of reducing the price of a single can of beer by 40%. However, it is believed that the law has had the effect of making the most substantial discounts practically disappear.