In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., Inc., 1952, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had accused Motion Picture Advertising Service Company and its affiliates of violating antitrust laws by monopolizing and restraining trade within the motion picture advertising market. The defendants argued that their business practices were not anti-competitive because they did not control prices or exclude competition but merely provided a service to theaters who chose to use it. However, the court found that these practices still constituted an unlawful restraint on trade as they effectively controlled access to theater screens for advertisers, thereby stifering competition among potential competitors. This decision affirmed that any practice which significantly restricts competition can be deemed illegal under antitrust law even if it does not directly manipulate pricing or explicitly exclude other businesses from entering into a particular market.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order against the defendant company was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had engaged in unfair methods of competition, which is what they were accused of by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously, suggesting an arbitrary application of law. Furthermore, they disagreed with FTC’s assertion about monopoly power and its effect on competition as well as consumer welfare. They also criticized FTC’s approach towards defining relevant market without considering other competitive forces at play within broader advertising industry. In their view, this case represented an overreach by federal regulators into business practices better left to free-market dynamics.