In the United States v. Coca Cola Company of Atlanta case in 1915, the U.S. government accused Coca-Cola of violating the Pure Food and Drug Act by adding caffeine to its product without disclosing it on labels or advertising materials. The government argued that caffeine was an added ingredient not part of the original formula and therefore should be considered adulteration under law. However, Coca-Cola contended that caffeine was a natural component of one of their ingredients - kola nuts - hence did not constitute adulteration as per legal definition at that time which only included substances "added" to food or drink products after production had begun but before they were sold. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Coca-Cola stating there wasn't sufficient evidence proving whether or not caffeine was naturally present in all cola drinks due to variations between different types and sources for kola nuts used by manufacturers worldwide; thus making it impossible for them to determine if this particular company's use constituted an illegal addition according to current regulations about what constitutes 'adulterated' goods under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Coca Cola Company of Atlanta, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was too broad and could potentially lead to an overreach of government power in regulating commerce. He contended that while it is within Congress' purview to regulate interstate commerce, this should not extend to dictating what ingredients a company can use in its products unless there is clear evidence these ingredients are harmful or deceptive. In his view, caffeine - which was at issue in this case - did not meet such criteria as it was widely accepted and used by consumers without harm or deception involved. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications on personal liberties if the court were allowed to dictate consumer choices based on subjective standards rather than objective scientific evidence.