In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Company, 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had charged Western Meat Company with unfair competition practices by selling meat below cost to drive competitors out of business and create a monopoly in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The company argued that it was not engaged in interstate commerce as required for FTC jurisdiction because its sales were made within California only. However, since their products originated from other states and they intended to monopolize not just local but also interstate trade, the court held that these activities constituted a "course of business" affecting commerce among several states thus falling under federal regulation. Therefore, despite operating primarily within one state's boundaries, companies can still be subject to federal laws if their actions impact interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Company case argued that the majority's interpretation of "unfair methods of competition" was too broad and could potentially criminalize normal business practices. The dissenters believed that this vague definition would lead to arbitrary enforcement by the FTC, which could stifle legitimate competition and innovation in various industries. They also pointed out that there were already existing laws to deal with deceptive or fraudulent business practices, so it was unnecessary for the FTC to have such expansive powers. Furthermore, they contended that giving such wide-ranging authority to an administrative agency like the FTC violated principles of separation of powers and threatened individual liberty.