Standards of fill

Why the list exists

On this page10

The problem it solves Which is why it is closed, not capped The cost falls on small producers So differentiation moves to the bottle itself It is also why the unusual sizes are interesting And it interacts with price per unit Net contents cannot be vague It is a US list, and not the world’s The list changes, slowly References

It exists so that two bottles on a shelf can be compared, which only works if there are few enough sizes to hold in your head.

The problem it solves

If every producer chose its own volume, no shelf price would be comparable to any other and a slightly smaller bottle at a slightly lower price would be indistinguishable from a better deal.

Which is why it is closed, not capped

A maximum size would prevent one abuse. A closed list of permitted sizes prevents the whole category of abuse, at the cost of removing a degree of freedom from everybody.

The cost falls on small producers

A large brand is bottling at 750 mL regardless. A small producer who would like to differentiate on format has one of twenty-five options and most of them are commercially awkward.

So differentiation moves to the bottle itself

Shape, glass colour, closure, capsule, label stock and print finish are all unconstrained. The volume is fixed and everything visible about the package is not, which is why spirits packaging is as elaborate as it is.

It is also why the unusual sizes are interesting

475 mL and 945 mL are authorized and uncommon. A producer using one is differentiating on format while staying entirely inside the rules, which is the only route of that kind available.

And it interacts with price per unit

Because sizes are comparable, so is the arithmetic. A 475 mL bottle will be read against a 500 mL bottle by anybody paying attention, and the product has to be worth the difference rather than hiding it.

Net contents cannot be vague

The net contents statement is mandatory and the size it states has to be one of the twenty-five. There is no "approximately" available, which is the other half of making the comparison work.

It is a US list, and not the world’s

Other markets authorize other sizes, which is why 700 mL and 750 mL both appear. A producer exporting is working against two lists at once, and a size legal in both is worth more than one that is legal in either.

The list changes, slowly

Sizes have been added over the years as the trade has argued for them. It is not frozen, which is a reason to read the current text rather than a list copied from somewhere a few years ago.

References

27 CFR 5.203(a), the standards of fill: "The following metric standards of fill are authorized for distilled spirits, whether domestically bottled or imported" — 3.75 L, 3 L, 2 L, 1.8 L, 1.75 L, 1.5 L, 1.0 L, 945 mL, 900 mL, 750 mL, 720 mL, 710 mL, 700 mL, 570 mL, 500 mL, 475 mL, 375 mL, 355 mL, 350 mL, 331 mL, 250 mL, 200 mL, 187 mL, 100 mL and 50 mL. law.cornell.edu

27 CFR 5.63, mandatory label information. Brand name, class and type designation and alcohol content appear in the same field of vision, so that "all of the pieces of information can be viewed simultaneously without the need to turn the container". Name and address and net contents may appear anywhere on the container, and the net contents "may be blown, embossed, or molded into the container". law.cornell.edu

Written from 27 CFR 5.63, 5.203, 16.21 and 16.22, and from the catalog as it stood on 17 October 2026. Distilled spirits are federally permitted and separately regulated by every state; label approval, permits and formula approval are outside what these pages cover, and nothing here is a substitute for TTB guidance on a specific product.