In the case of Securities and Exchange Commission v. United Benefit Life Insurance Co., 1966, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The court held that variable annuities are securities under federal law, thus subject to SEC regulation. The decision was based on a dispute between SEC and United Benefit Life Insurance Company over whether or not an annuity contract sold by United Benefit should be classified as a security. The company argued that it was an insurance product exempt from federal securities laws while SEC maintained it fell within their regulatory purview due to its investment risk component. In siding with the SEC, the court noted that purchasers were subjected to investment risks because benefits varied depending upon market performance; hence they needed protection provided by securities laws.

In the dissenting opinion for SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. UNITED BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE CO., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's view that United Benefit Life Insurance Co.'s variable annuity contracts were securities under federal law. He argued that these contracts, which provided a fixed return or a return based on an equity portfolio managed by United Benefit, did not involve any investment risk to be borne by contract holders and thus should not be considered as securities. According to him, the majority’s decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings and could potentially lead to unnecessary regulatory burdens on insurance companies without providing significant benefits in terms of investor protection.