In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Sun Oil Co., 1962, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sun Oil Company. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had accused Sun Oil of violating Section 5 of the FTC Act by selling gasoline at a lower price than its competitors in certain markets, which allegedly constituted unfair competition and an attempt to monopolize those markets. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove these allegations beyond reasonable doubt. It held that low pricing is not inherently illegal or harmful to competition; rather it can stimulate competition and benefit consumers unless it's predatory or below cost with intent to eliminate competitors and then raise prices - something FTC failed to demonstrate convincingly about Sun Oil's practices.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. Sun Oil Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's order against Sun Oil Company, which prohibited them from selling gasoline below cost with intent to destroy competition or create monopoly, was based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The dissenting justices believed that this section should not be interpreted so broadly as to include practices that are merely unfair in a competitive sense but do not involve deception or fraud. They pointed out that there is no evidence showing any deceptive practice by Sun Oil nor any attempt at monopolization; instead, they were simply engaged in aggressive price competition. Furthermore, they contended that such broad interpretation could potentially stifle healthy and vigorous competition rather than promoting it - contrary to what antitrust laws aim for.