In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. A.P.W. Paper Co., Inc., 1945, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had charged A.P.W. Paper Company with violating Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act by accepting brokerage fees from paper mills for whom it acted as a selling agent while also buying directly from those mills for its own account. The company argued that these transactions were not covered under Section 2(c) because they did not involve resale to customers but rather direct purchases for their own use and consumption, hence no discrimination occurred against other buyers or competition was lessened. However, the court disagreed stating that such interpretation would defeat Congress's purpose behind enacting this law which is to prevent price discriminations through indirect means like brokerage arrangements and rebates among others which can harm competition.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. A.P.W. Paper Co., Inc., Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against A.P.W. Paper Company, arguing that it was based on an overly broad interpretation of "unfair methods of competition." He contended that this case did not involve any deceptive or fraudulent practices, nor did it harm consumers in any way; rather, it involved a business practice common among wholesalers who often give discounts to large-volume buyers as part of their competitive strategy. According to Justice Jackson, such price discrimination should only be considered illegal if there is evidence showing its potential adverse impact on competition or consumer welfare - which was lacking in this case - otherwise, he warned that FTC's overreach could potentially stifle legitimate business strategies and innovation.