In the 1985 case Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp, Zenith and National Union Electric Corporation (NUE) claimed that Japanese television manufacturers were selling products at a loss in the United States to undermine American competition, while keeping prices high in Japan to subsidize these losses - a practice known as predatory pricing. The plaintiffs alleged this was part of an international conspiracy violating U.S antitrust laws under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 73 of Wilson Tariff Act. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Matsushita et al., stating that there was insufficient evidence for such claims since it would be irrational for companies to engage in long-term profit sacrifice without reasonable expectation of recouping their losses through monopoly power. Furthermore, they noted that low prices benefit consumers regardless if they are set by competitive or monopolistic behavior unless below-cost pricing is proven which could drive competitors out from market permanently.

In the dissenting opinion for Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., Justice William J. Brennan Jr. argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Zenith's claims of a conspiracy by Japanese companies to undercut American competitors was premature and inappropriate at this stage in litigation, as it should have been left up to a jury trial instead of being decided on summary judgment motion alone. He criticized the majority’s use of economic theory about rational business behavior as an improper basis for dismissing evidence supporting Zenith’s claim, stating that such theories do not necessarily reflect real-world business practices or motivations accurately enough to be used as definitive proof against conspiracy allegations in antitrust cases like this one.