In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Carter Products, Inc., 1953, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had charged Carter Products with deceptive advertising practices for its product Arrid deodorant. The company's advertisements claimed that their product could stop perspiration and prevent odor "for one out of three people all day long." However, they failed to disclose that this claim was based on a test where subjects were inactive in a cool room - conditions which do not reflect typical daily activities or environments. Therefore, it was deemed misleading as it created an impression that such results would be achieved under normal use by consumers. The court upheld FTC’s cease-and-desist order against Carter Products' advertisement campaign stating these claims without proper disclosure about testing conditions.

The dissenting opinion in the Federal Trade Commission v. Carter Products, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's cease and desist order against Carter was based on a misinterpretation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The dissenters believed that this section only prohibited unfair methods of competition which were deceptive or fraudulent, not those merely deemed "unfair" by FTC standards. They contended that if Congress had intended for all "unfair" practices to be banned under Section 5, it would have explicitly stated so in its language. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that any practice causing substantial injury to competitors could be considered an unfair method of competition regardless of whether deception or fraud was involved.