The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 1964, revolved around the issue of whether a merger between two companies violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers that may substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argued that Consolidated Foods Corporation's acquisition of Gentry Inc., both engaged in wholesale distribution and processing of food products, would result in such an anti-competitive effect. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with FTC’s argument stating there was insufficient evidence to prove this claim as it failed to define relevant product and geographic markets accurately where competition might be affected by the merger. Therefore, it ruled in favor of Consolidated Foods Corp., overturning FTC's order for divestiture.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 1964, it was argued that the majority's decision to block Consolidated Foods' acquisition of Gentry Inc. on grounds of potential anti-competitive effects was unjustified and overly cautious. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that this merger would substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly in any line of commerce as per Section 7 of Clayton Act. They pointed out that both companies were relatively small players in their respective markets and their combined market share post-acquisition would still be insignificant compared to larger competitors'. Furthermore, they contended that FTC had failed to consider other factors such as potential benefits from economies of scale which could actually enhance competition by enabling smaller firms like Consolidated Foods and Gentry Inc. to compete more effectively against larger rivals.