In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 1966, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to antitrust laws and deceptive practices in advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Universal-Rundle Corporation, a manufacturer of bathroom fixtures, of engaging in false advertising by claiming that its products were superior to those made from vitreous china when they were actually composed of less durable materials. The FTC also alleged that this conduct was an unfair method of competition under Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. However, Universal-Rundle argued that their claims about product superiority did not constitute deception as they believed them to be true at the time they were made. In its decision, the court sided with FTC stating that even if a company believes it's making truthful statements about its products' quality or performance compared to competitors', such assertions can still be considered deceptive if not substantiated by facts.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Universal-Rundle Corp., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's cease and desist order against Universal-Rundle Corporation was misguided. He contended that there was no substantial evidence supporting FTC’s claim that Universal-Rundle had engaged in deceptive practices, as required by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The company had merely made a factual statement about its product which did not mislead consumers or cause them harm, according to him. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for expanding FTC’s authority beyond what Congress intended when it enacted Section 5 of the Act - an action he believed would have far-reaching implications on businesses’ freedom of speech rights under First Amendment protections.