In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Flotill Products, Inc., 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had issued a cease and desist order against Flotill Products for violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by falsely advertising its canned tomato products as being made from fresh tomatoes when they were actually made from remanufactured concentrate. The company appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court which set aside this order on grounds that there was no evidence showing consumers were misled or deceived by these claims. However, upon reaching Supreme Court review, it held that actual proof of deception wasn't necessary under Section 5; rather it was enough if there is a reasonable likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers could be mislead by such claims. Therefore, it reinstated FTC's original cease and desist order against Flotill Products.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. Flotill Products, Inc., case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's cease and desist order against Flotill was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that Flotill had engaged in unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts or practices as alleged by FTC. They contended that while some of Flotill’s actions may have been aggressive business tactics, they did not necessarily constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which prohibits "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices". Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted this section and expressed concern about its potential implications on future cases involving competitive business conduct.