In the case of Corn Products Refining Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The court held that a company's acquisition of its competitor could be considered an "unfair method of competition" under Section 5 of the FTC Act even if it did not violate other antitrust laws such as Sherman or Clayton Acts. The Corn Products Refining Company and others had acquired substantial shares in their competitor, National Starch Manufacturing Company, which led to FTC’s complaint against them for reducing competition and creating a monopoly in violation with Section 5. Despite arguments from Corn Products Refining Co., stating that this action was legal under existing anti-trust legislation at that time, the Supreme Court upheld FTC's decision asserting its authority to prevent business practices potentially harmful to competition.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's order was incorrect, as it failed to consider the unique nature of futures trading and its role in business operations. The dissent emphasized that futures contracts were not merely speculative instruments but served a practical purpose for businesses like Corn Products Refining Co., allowing them to hedge against price fluctuations and secure a steady supply of raw materials necessary for their production processes. Therefore, these transactions should be seen as part of regular business operations rather than manipulative practices violating antitrust laws. Furthermore, they contended that there was no evidence showing any intent or effect on market manipulation by Corn Products Refining Company through its use of futures contracts; hence, FTC’s order lacked substantial justification.