In the case of Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. et al. v. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency et al., 1969, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that competitors may sue federal agencies over actions that could potentially harm their business interests. The dispute arose when a group of data processing companies challenged a decision by William B. Camp, then Comptroller of the Currency (a federal banking regulator), to allow national banks to provide data processing services to other banks and customers - an area previously dominated by private firms like those in the plaintiff association. The plaintiffs argued this would create unfair competition for them. The court held that under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), any person "adversely affected or aggrieved" by agency action is entitled to judicial review if they can demonstrate injury in fact and within zone-of-interests protected or regulated by statute involved in question; thus establishing two-pronged test for standing: injury-in-fact and zone-of-interests tests.

In the dissenting opinion for Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., et al. v. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency, et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to expand standing doctrine was misguided and could lead to a floodgate of litigation from parties who were not directly affected by administrative decisions. He contended that allowing competitors or other indirectly affected groups to challenge agency actions would distract courts from their primary role in resolving disputes between individuals and government agencies where there is a clear injury or violation of rights. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential overreach into executive branch functions if courts became more involved in reviewing agency decisions based on challenges from parties with only an indirect interest in those decisions.