In the case of William C. Dunn and Delta Consultants, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission et al., 1996, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that required commodity trading advisors to disclose their past performance records violated First Amendment rights. The court ruled in favor of CFTC stating that its requirement for disclosure did not violate any constitutional rights under the First Amendment as it merely regulated commercial speech which is subject to lesser protection than other constitutionally guaranteed expressions. Furthermore, they found this rule served an important governmental interest in protecting consumers from potentially misleading information about investment opportunities and ensuring transparency within financial markets.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of William C. Dunn and Delta Consultants, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a broad interpretation of "commodity trading advisor" under Section 1a(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is inconsistent with Congress' intent when enacting this legislation. The dissenters believed that such an expansive definition could potentially encompass any individual who provides advice about commodity futures, regardless if they are engaged in business or not - which would be contrary to what Congress intended when drafting this law. They also disagreed with how broadly 'advice' was interpreted by the majority, arguing that it should only apply to specific recommendations on particular transactions rather than general market analysis or predictions.