In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Raladam Company, a manufacturer and distributor of an obesity remedy called "Marmola." The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously issued a cease-and-desist order against Raladam for false advertising claims about Marmola's effectiveness and safety. However, the court found that FTC lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order because it failed to demonstrate that Raladams' business practices were detrimental to competition or created monopoly power. This ruling highlighted that under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act at this time, FTC could only intervene if commerce was being unfairly affected by anti-competitive behavior rather than merely deceptive marketing tactics.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., it was argued that there was no substantial evidence to support the majority's decision that Raladam Company had engaged in unfair competition and deceptive practices. The dissenting justices contended that while some of their advertising claims may have been exaggerated, this did not necessarily constitute deception or misrepresentation under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unfair methods of competition," arguing it should only apply to business conduct which is unethical or oppressive towards competitors, rather than consumers. Furthermore, they believed that even if Raladam’s advertisements were misleading, this would be a matter for state law and not federal jurisdiction.