In the 1984 case of Lowe et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lowe, stating that a publisher who is not involved in personalized investment advice or management does not need to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC had previously revoked Christopher Lowe's registration due to fraudulent activities but he continued publishing an investment newsletter which led to this legal dispute. The court held that newsletters containing commentary on general market trends did not constitute "investment advice" as defined by law and were protected by First Amendment rights for freedom of speech and press.

In the dissenting opinion for Lowe v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. He argued that Congress intended to regulate all who provide investment advice for compensation, regardless if it is personalized or not. The majority’s decision to exclude publishers from this regulation was seen as a misinterpretation by Justice White. He also pointed out that there are other laws in place which protect freedom of speech and press without having to distort the meaning of this act. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential loopholes where fraudulent advisers could escape regulation by simply labeling their services as "publications" rather than personal advice.