In the 1933 case Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had charged Algoma Lumber Company and other lumber companies with unfair methods of competition, specifically price-fixing, which violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The defendants argued that their actions were not unlawful because they did not result in a monopoly or restraint on trade as defined by Sherman Antitrust Act standards. However, Justice Brandeis delivered an opinion stating that Section 5 is broader than previous antitrust laws and covers more than just practices leading to monopolies or restraints on trade; it also includes practices deemed contrary to established public policy for being unethical or unscrupulous even if they do not violate specific common law rules against unfair competition.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order issued by the FTC against lumber companies for price fixing was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove an unlawful combination or conspiracy among these companies, as required under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. They pointed out that mere parallel business behavior does not necessarily indicate collusion or agreement, especially in industries with few players where independent actions can often appear coordinated. Furthermore, they disagreed with applying anti-trust laws so broadly as to include any cooperation between businesses which might affect competition even slightly; such interpretation could potentially stifle legitimate business practices and collaborations beneficial to economy and consumers alike.