In the case of Hudson Distributors, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 1963, Hudson Distributors (a wholesale drug company) sued Eli Lilly & Co. (a pharmaceutical manufacturer), alleging that they had violated antitrust laws by refusing to sell their products directly to them and instead selling through selected wholesalers at discriminatory prices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eli Lilly & Co., stating that there was no violation of antitrust laws as the refusal to deal did not amount to an illegal conspiracy or monopolization under the Sherman Act nor did it constitute price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act because both parties were not competing customers.

In the dissenting opinion for Hudson Distributors, Inc., v. Eli Lilly & Co., the justice disagreed with the majority's decision that a drug manufacturer could not be held liable for injuries caused by its product if it had complied with federal safety regulations. The dissent argued that compliance with such standards should only serve as evidence of due care, rather than an absolute defense against liability. They contended that allowing manufacturers to escape responsibility in this way would undermine state tort law and leave injured consumers without recourse. Furthermore, they pointed out that federal regulations are often minimal standards and do not necessarily guarantee a product’s safety under all circumstances; therefore, adherence to these rules should not absolve companies from potential negligence claims.