The Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 1952, was a case that dealt with the issue of monopolies and anti-competitive practices in business. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company of violating the Clayton Act by acquiring Brown Instrument Company, which resulted in lessening competition or tending to create a monopoly in the industry of manufacturing and selling industrial temperature regulators. However, Honeywell argued that their acquisition did not violate any laws as they were not direct competitors with Brown Instrument Company since they produced different types of products within the same general field. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Honeywell stating that there must be a reasonable probability that an acquisition would substantially lessen competition for it to be considered illegal under Section 7 of Clayton Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's order against Honeywell was based on a misinterpretation of antitrust laws and an overreach of FTC authority. He contended that there was no evidence showing Honeywell had intended or attempted to monopolize the thermostat market, nor any proof that their acquisition of Brown Instrument Company would have this effect. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for assuming harm from potential competition without concrete evidence, stating it could stifle legitimate business growth and innovation if applied broadly. Lastly, he expressed concern about giving too much power to administrative agencies like FTC in determining what constitutes unfair methods of competition.