## Facts

- Federal law barred most beer labels from stating alcohol content, while allowing limited exceptions and permitting alcohol-content statements for wine and distilled spirits.
- Coors Brewing Co. sought approval to place truthful alcohol-content information on its beer labels and in related materials.
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denied approval based on the statutory labeling prohibition.
- Coors sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the label restriction violated the First Amendment protection for commercial speech.
- The government defended the ban as a means to prevent “strength wars,” asserting that alcohol-content disclosures would spur brewers to compete by increasing potency, contributing to alcoholism and related social costs.
- After remand and further factfinding, the Tenth Circuit held the labeling ban unconstitutional for failing to materially advance the asserted interest; the government sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory prohibition on truthful, nonmisleading disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels violates the First Amendment protection for commercial speech.
2. Whether the labeling ban satisfies the Central Hudson test, including whether it directly and materially advances a substantial governmental interest and is no more extensive than necessary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment invalidating the beer-labeling prohibition.
- The Court held the alcohol-content statement was truthful, verifiable, and nonmisleading commercial speech about a lawful product and thus entitled to First Amendment protection.
- Preventing “strength wars” was accepted as a substantial interest, but the government failed to show the labeling ban directly and materially advanced that interest.
- The statutory and regulatory scheme was internally inconsistent—allowing alcohol-content disclosures for other alcoholic beverages and certain beer products—undercutting any claim that suppressing beer-label information would prevent strength-based competition.
- The ban was more extensive than necessary because less speech-restrictive alternatives were available, including direct limits on beer alcohol content or standardized, strength-neutral presentation requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech about lawful activity is protected and may be restricted only if the government satisfies the Central Hudson criteria.
- To justify a commercial-speech restriction, the government must show with more than speculation that the restriction advances the asserted interest in a direct and material way.
- A regulatory scheme’s inconsistencies can defeat the required showing that a speech restriction materially advances the government’s stated goal.
- When feasible, the government must prefer measures that regulate the product or conduct directly, or otherwise impose a narrower fit, rather than suppressing truthful information.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the federal ban on stating alcohol content on most beer labels violated the First Amendment because the government did not prove the ban materially prevented strength-based competition and because less restrictive approaches could address the asserted harms without suppressing truthful consumer information.


Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (1995)