In Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an independent service station operator, George E. Perkins, who had been terminated by Standard Oil Company without just cause or reasonable notice as required under their contract agreement and California law. The court held that a provision in the contract allowing for termination "at will" was not enforceable because it violated public policy which seeks to prevent arbitrary and unfair terminations that could potentially harm small businesses and competition within the industry.

In the dissenting opinion for Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of California, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a private right of action under Section 4 of the Clayton Act was incorrect and unsupported by precedent or legislative history. He contended that Congress did not intend to create such a broad remedy when it enacted this law in 1914, as evidenced by its failure to include explicit language authorizing private suits for damages caused by antitrust violations. Furthermore, he pointed out that previous Supreme Court decisions had consistently interpreted this provision narrowly, limiting its application to situations where there was clear evidence of congressional intent to provide a private remedy. In his view, allowing individuals who were only indirectly affected by an alleged violation (like Perkins) to sue would open up floodgates for litigation and undermine effective enforcement of antitrust laws.