In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Shoe Co., Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1965. The FTC had accused Brown Shoe Company, a major shoe manufacturer and retailer, of violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in deceptive practices that misled consumers about its products' prices and quality. The company was found to have used false advertising tactics such as misleading price comparisons and misrepresentations about product features or benefits. Despite arguments from Brown Shoe Company that their actions were not harmful enough to be considered illegal under Section 5, the court upheld an order from FTC requiring them to cease these deceptive practices. This decision reinforced FTC's authority to regulate business marketing strategies for consumer protection purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Shoe Co., Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order against Brown Shoe Company, based on its use of exclusive dealing contracts, was not justified by either law or fact. The dissent emphasized that there was no substantial evidence proving these contracts had an adverse effect on competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It also criticized the FTC’s reliance on theoretical assumptions about potential harm rather than concrete proof of actual anti-competitive effects. Furthermore, it pointed out that such arrangements are common in many industries and can have pro-competitive benefits by promoting efficiency and reducing costs. Therefore, they should not be condemned without clear evidence demonstrating their harmful impact on competition.