The U.S. Supreme Court case California Dental Association v. Federal Trade Commission in 1998 revolved around the issue of whether the California Dental Association (CDA), a non-profit organization, was subject to antitrust laws under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC alleged that CDA engaged in anti-competitive practices by restricting its members from providing certain types of advertising information, such as quality and price comparisons for dental services. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled against CDA, stating it violated federal trade law with its restrictive advertising policies which limited competition among dentists and potentially harmed consumers through higher prices or less choice. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision was reversed in a 5-4 ruling favoring CDA. The majority opinion held that there wasn't enough evidence showing these restrictions had an adverse effect on competition sufficient to warrant quick look analysis under antitrust laws; instead requiring more detailed review before determining if they were indeed anti-competitive.

The dissenting opinion in the case of California Dental Association v. Federal Trade Commission argued that the majority had failed to apply proper antitrust analysis and instead created a new standard for evaluating restrictions on commercial speech. The dissent, led by Justice Souter, contended that the Court should have applied a rule-of-reason analysis to determine whether the advertising restrictions imposed by CDA were anti-competitive or not. They believed that there was enough evidence presented at trial showing these restrictions could potentially harm competition and limit consumer choice. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about professional self-regulation being inherently pro-competitive; arguing it can also be used as an excuse for anti-competitive behavior under certain circumstances. Therefore, they felt FTC was correct in its initial ruling against CDA.