Bert:

How low can you get?

Apparently the ones suing are about as low (on IQ) as you're likely to find.

In the US at least, I've never seen beer with a label showing a minimum alcohol content. Many places, in the US and elsewhere, have regulations limiting the maximum alcohol content, and lots of beer is labelled "does not contain more than XX% alcohol by weight."

A 3.2% by weight is a common limit, but other places have different ones. 3.2% by weight is approximately 6% by volume or about "12 proof" but beer is never labelled that way anywhere I've been.

(I was told once that Greenland limited it to something like 1.5% by weight, but never verified that, and it was a long time ago.)

In Kansas, and several other places, you can buy "three-two" beer at the supermarket (because it's "non-alcoholic" according to the legislatures) but you have to go to a "package store" to get "strong beer." For several well-known brands, it's the same beer both places, but the "not over 3.2%" stuff is labelled to qualify for general sales and the "strong stuff" just doesn't have the label.

One of the fairly popular "premium" whisk(e)ys attempted to change their traditionally "100 proof" stuff to "90 proof" due to a supply shortage, but was forced to revert back to the original recently "by popular demand" so the flap over that probably suggested the beer suit.

"Popular knowledge" about the alcohol content of beers is almost entirely mythical and almost always dead wrong. The people who filed this suit are obviously among the deluded, and maybe dead drunk as well.

Share a little of the musical ridicule for the complainers, if you can think up a good line or two. Nothing wrong with makin' a little fun about beer either, though.

John