In the Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FTC, affirming its authority to regulate "unfair practices" even if they are not specifically prohibited by law. The case involved Sperry & Hutchinson (S&H), a company that issued trading stamps to retailers for distribution to customers as part of a rewards program. The FTC charged S&H with unfair trade practices because it restricted how these stamps could be redeemed and used by consumers and other businesses. S&H argued that their actions were not explicitly illegal under existing laws or regulations; however, the court upheld that while specific conduct may not be prescribed in legislation, it can still fall within regulatory purview if deemed 'unfair'. This decision underscored FTC's broad powers to define and enforce against unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts/practices affecting commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision expanded the powers of the FTC beyond what was intended by Congress. He contended that, under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, unfair methods of competition were to be considered unlawful but not all unethical or immoral business practices could be deemed as such. The majority’s interpretation allowed for a broad and undefined scope which could potentially lead to arbitrary enforcement and uncertainty in businesses. Furthermore, he believed this case did not involve an "unfair method of competition" since it didn't harm other competitors nor impair competition itself; rather it was a dispute between S&H Green Stamps Company and its customers over redemption policies - something he felt should have been handled through contract law instead.