The U.S. Supreme Court case International Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Commission in 1929 revolved around the issue of whether a corporation could be held liable for unfair methods of competition under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, even if its actions were not technically illegal or fraudulent. The International Shoe Company had been accused by the FTC of using predatory pricing tactics to drive competitors out of business and create a monopoly in certain markets. The company argued that it was only engaging in normal competitive behavior and that its practices did not constitute an "unfair method" as defined by law. However, the Supreme Court ruled against International Shoe Company, upholding the FTC's broad authority to define what constitutes an unfair method of competition on a case-by-case basis rather than relying solely on statutory definitions or legal precedents. This decision affirmed that corporations can be held accountable for anti-competitive practices even when they do not violate specific laws or regulations but are deemed harmful to fair market competition overall.

The dissenting opinion in the case of International Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Commission argued that the majority's decision to uphold the FTC's order was an overreach of its authority and a violation of due process rights. The dissenters believed that there was not enough evidence to prove that International Shoe had engaged in unfair competition, as alleged by the FTC. They also took issue with how broadly the majority interpreted "unfair methods of competition," arguing it gave too much power to regulatory agencies like FTC without clear legislative guidance or judicial oversight. Furthermore, they contended that such broad interpretation could lead to arbitrary enforcement and uncertainty for businesses trying to comply with trade laws, which would ultimately harm economic growth and innovation.