I don't think it would be attacked like tobacco. I do think there would be a push for regulations and standards related to what a (for lack of a better term) serving-size of caffeine is, and also better disclosure of how much caffeine is in what.
I used tobacco as an example because of its former ubiquity, but sure. I'm kind of surprised though, that the word "addiction" has such a negative stigma in most contexts, but as long as nothing negative is known about a substance that people habitually use, or extreme behaviors caused by a particular addiction, the public seems ok with addiction as a concept. However, when something negative is concretely known about an addiction, it's suddenly the end of the world and those people should be punished/pitied/shunned.
It's hard because if there's nothing concrete then people aren't going to lend you or whoever else credibility when viewing the behavior caused by the substance. It's also marketing, of course. It's harder to market energy drinks or vitamin water when you have whatever government agency saying that caffeine does x, y, and z and is now a regulated substance. I'm just glad that my sources of caffeine are mostly chocolate and ice cream, no coffee, energy drinks, tea (rarely), etc.