The U.S. Supreme Court case Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 2013 dealt with the issue of standing in a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. Lexmark, a printer manufacturer, sued Static Control for making and selling components that enabled remanufacturers to refurbish used Lexmark toner cartridges and sell them at lower prices than new ones from Lexmark itself. In response, Static Control counterclaimed alleging that Lexmark engaged in false advertising which harmed its business reputation and sales. Lexmark argued that only direct competitors could sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act but this was rejected by the court who held that any plaintiff (including non-competitors) can come forward if they believe they were injured by deceptive practices violating this act. In essence, it expanded potential plaintiffs' ability to bring forth lawsuits against companies engaging in misleading or deceitful marketing tactics beyond just immediate market competitors; thus broadening protections against unfair competition.

In the case of Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., there was no dissenting opinion recorded in the Supreme Court's decision. The court unanimously ruled in favor of Static Control Components, allowing them to proceed with a false advertising lawsuit against Lexmark International under the Lanham Act. The justices agreed that a plaintiff suing for false advertising does not have to prove it lost sales or business directly because of deceptive practices; instead they must show only an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales likely caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations.