In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Henry Broch & Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had charged that Henry Broch & Co., a wholesale fruit and produce broker, was engaging in unfair methods of competition by accepting brokerage fees from both buyers and sellers without disclosing this dual role to its clients. This practice violated Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act which prohibits brokers from receiving compensation from both parties without their knowledge or consent. The court held that these undisclosed payments constituted an unfair method of competition under Section 5(a)(6) of the Federal Trade Commission Act because they created conflicts between brokers' duties to their clients and their own financial interests. Therefore, it affirmed FTC's cease-and-desist order against Broch for violating federal trade laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Henry Broch & Co., Justice Whittaker argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act, as amended by Robinson-Patman Act. He contended that this section prohibits brokerage payments only when they are made to induce discriminatory prices and not in all circumstances where such payments might be involved in transactions resulting in price discrimination. According to him, there was no evidence showing that any part of these brokerage fees were passed back to customers or used to finance discriminatory pricing practices; thus, their payment did not violate Section 2(c). He also pointed out inconsistencies between FTC’s findings and its order which he believed should have been resolved before affirmance could properly be given.