In the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., DBA Kay's Kloset...Kay's Shoes (2006), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Leegin Creative Leather Products by a 5-4 vote. The dispute centered around vertical price fixing and whether it should be considered illegal per se under antitrust laws or if it should be evaluated using a rule-of-reason standard. Vertical price fixing refers to an agreement between suppliers and retailers on the minimum retail pricing for products. Previously, such agreements were deemed automatically unlawful due to their potential to limit competition; however, this ruling overturned that precedent set by Dr Miles Medical Co v John D Park & Sons Co in 1911. The court held that these agreements could sometimes promote competition rather than restrict it - for example, by encouraging retailer services that would not otherwise be provided or preventing discounting retailers from free-riding on others' sales efforts - thus they should not always be treated as categorically illegal but instead analyzed based on their competitive effects.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., DBA Kay's Kloset...Kay's Shoes argued that the majority decision to overturn a nearly century-old precedent regarding minimum price agreements was misguided and potentially harmful to consumers. The dissenters believed that such agreements could be used by manufacturers and retailers to artificially inflate prices at the expense of consumers, which is why they were deemed illegal under antitrust laws for so long. They also expressed concern about changing this rule without clear evidence showing it would benefit competition or consumers overall. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that courts are capable of distinguishing between pro-competitive and anti-competitive uses of these pricing agreements on a case-by-case basis.