The U.S. Supreme Court case Swarb et al. v. Lennox et al., 1971, revolved around the legality of certain clauses in retail installment contracts used by a finance company for purchasing household goods on credit. The plaintiffs, who were customers of the defendant's company, argued that these clauses - which waived their right to receive notice before any legal action was taken against them and allowed judgments to be entered against them without trial - violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that such contractual provisions indeed infringed upon consumers' constitutional rights because they effectively deprived individuals of their day in court and other procedural safeguards inherent within judicial proceedings. This decision underscored how consumer protection laws must align with constitutional standards regarding due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Swarb et al. v. Lennox et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow class action lawsuits in cases where individual claims were small was a departure from traditional legal principles and could lead to abuses of the judicial system. He contended that such suits should only be allowed when it would be impractical or impossible for individuals to bring their own claims, not simply because they might find it inconvenient or unprofitable to do so. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest between class representatives and other members of the class, as well as issues related to due process rights for defendants in these types of cases. Overall, Justice Harlan believed that allowing this type of litigation could potentially undermine fairness and justice within our legal system.