In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company, 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had charged Raladam Company with false advertising for its weight loss product called "Marmola." The company claimed that Marmola was a safe and effective method for losing weight without diet or exercise. However, evidence showed that it contained desiccated thyroid which could potentially cause harmful side effects including heart problems. Initially, lower courts ruled in favor of Raladam on grounds that FTC failed to prove substantial injury to competition as required under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Act at that time. But upon appeal by FTC, Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that public interest is also a consideration under Section 5 and not just competitive business practices alone; hence ruling against deceptive advertisements even if they do not directly harm competitors but mislead consumers.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company, Justice Owen Roberts disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in relation to commerce. He argued that the FTC had overstepped its bounds by attempting to regulate a company's claims about its product without clear evidence of deception or harm to competition. According to him, it was not within FTC’s purview to determine whether a product could deliver on its promises unless there were explicit false statements made that deceived consumers and harmed competitors. He believed this case represented an unwarranted expansion of federal regulatory power into areas traditionally governed by state law and individual consumer judgment.