In the case of POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 2013, POM Wonderful (POM), a pomegranate juice manufacturer, sued Coca-Cola for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The dispute arose from Coca-Cola's marketing of one of its juices as "pomegranate blueberry," when it contained only 0.3% pomegranate and blueberry juice combined. POM claimed that this misled consumers into thinking they were buying a product similar to their own pure pomegranate juice, thus causing them financial harm. The lower courts initially ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, stating that because its labeling complied with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, it could not be challenged under the Lanham Act - an act providing protection against unfair competition through misleading advertising or labeling. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court in June 2014, this decision was unanimously overturned. The court held that compliance with FDA regulations does not preclude a company from being sued under the Lanham Act for false or misleading labels; these two federal statutes complement each other in aiming to protect consumers and fair competition.

In the dissenting opinion of POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor, argued that the majority's decision could potentially undermine federal agencies' ability to regulate labeling practices effectively. They contended that allowing private parties like POM Wonderful to sue under the Lanham Act for unfair competition due to misleading food and beverage labels might interfere with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority over such matters. The FDA has specific expertise in this area which courts do not possess; therefore, they should defer to it when possible. Moreover, they expressed concern about creating a potential floodgate of litigation where every disagreement on label interpretation could lead into a lawsuit.