The law was originally passed to prevent increased costs and competition among the hundreds of breweries that were created following the end of Prohibition; the legislators were also trying to prevent alcohol horsepower wars, resulting in the marketing of malt beverages based on alcohol strength. In 1987, the Adolph Coors Company filed suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, claiming the prohibition was a violation of its first amendment right of free speech. Coors won the case in U.S. District Court; a hearing and decision on the defendants' appeal is pending. The authors note that the defendants would have to prove that the prohibition serves a substantial government interest and directly advances that interest. They point out that prohibiting alcohol content labeling deprives consumers of information that could be used in decisionmaking regarding alcohol consumption and the safety of performing activities such as driving. Furthermore, by not labeling their products, brewers could change the alcohol content of their beverages without the consumers' knowledge. Finally, producers of wines and distilled spirits must label their contents and there has been no evidence of alcohol horsepower wars among makers of these products. 30 notes