The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Milling Co., et al., in 1932, revolved around the issue of whether a company's deceptive practices could be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) even if those practices did not directly affect competition. The Royal Milling Company was accused of mislabeling and falsely advertising its product, leading to an FTC cease-and-desist order which the company appealed against on grounds that their actions didn't harm competition or create a monopoly. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FTC stating that it had authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to regulate unfair methods of competition including deceptive business practices regardless if they affected competition or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Milling Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Royal Milling Company overstepped its bounds. The dissent maintained that while there were indeed questionable business practices by Royal Milling, these did not necessarily constitute an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act as interpreted by previous court rulings. They believed that this case involved ordinary trade practices rather than deceptive or fraudulent conduct, which is what Section 5 primarily targets according to precedent cases. Therefore, they contended that such matters should be left to state law and courts instead of being federalized through broad interpretations of FTC authority.