The U.S. Supreme Court case Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in 1992 revolved around allegations of predatory pricing, where a company lowers its prices to eliminate or hinder competition and then raises them again once the competition is removed or reduced. Liggett (Brooke Group) accused Brown & Williamson of selling generic cigarettes below cost to force Liggett out of the market after it introduced a value-brand tier into the cigarette market that was significantly cheaper than premium brands, causing industry-wide losses. The court ruled in favor of Brown & Williamson stating that for a claim of predatory pricing to succeed, two factors must be proven: that the prices complained were below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs and there was a dangerous probability that the predator would recoup its investment through higher prices after driving competitors from the field; neither could be established by Liggett.

The dissenting opinion in the Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation case argued that the majority's decision failed to consider important economic realities of predatory pricing schemes and their potential for harm, particularly within oligopolistic markets. The dissent criticized the majority's reliance on simplistic economic theories which assume perfect competition and rational actors, arguing these do not accurately reflect real-world market conditions or behaviors. It further contended that by setting an unrealistically high bar for proving predatory pricing - requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate both below-cost pricing and a reasonable prospect of recouping losses through later price increases - the court effectively immunized such anti-competitive conduct from antitrust scrutiny, undermining legislative intent behind antitrust laws designed to protect competition.