In Federal Trade Commission v. Fred Meyer, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), stating that Fred Meyer, Inc. had violated Section 2(d) of the Clayton Act by providing promotional services to some customers and not others on proportionally equal terms. The case arose when a competitor complained about Fred Meyer's practice of giving advertising space in its weekly circulars to suppliers who paid for it while excluding those who did not pay. The court held that this constituted discrimination under Section 2(d). It was irrelevant whether or not these services were available upon request; what mattered was if they were offered on proportionally equal terms to all competing customers.

The dissenting opinion in the Federal Trade Commission v. Fred Meyer, Inc., case argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Clayton Act was too broad and not consistent with its legislative intent. The dissent believed that this section should only apply to situations where a supplier provides promotional services or facilities directly to a retailer, rather than indirectly through an intermediary such as an advertising agency. They contended that Congress intended for this provision to prevent large retailers from receiving preferential treatment over smaller ones by suppliers providing them with special discounts or promotional assistance. However, they did not believe it was meant to cover situations like in this case where Fred Meyer received no direct benefit from its supplier’s payments made on their behalf for newspaper advertisements promoting their products.