In the 1915 case of Seven Cases of Eckman's Alterative v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with issues related to false advertising and misbranding under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The product in question was a medicine called "Eckman's Alterative," which its manufacturers claimed could cure cancer, tuberculosis, and other serious diseases without any scientific evidence to support these claims. The government seized seven cases of this medicine on grounds that it was misbranded due to false therapeutic claims made on its labels. In defense, Eckman argued that their product did not fall within the purview of interstate commerce as defined by law because they only provided information about where customers could buy it rather than selling directly across state lines themselves. The court ruled against Eckman’s argument stating that even though they were not directly involved in interstate sales, their actions still influenced such transactions thereby bringing them under federal jurisdiction for regulation purposes according to Commerce Clause interpretation at that time period (pre-New Deal era). Therefore, since their product was indeed falsely advertised as per Pure Food & Drug Act standards given lack of proof regarding stated health benefits; seizure action taken by US authorities got upheld.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Seven Cases of Eckman's Alterative v. United States, 1915, argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by ruling on a matter not within its jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that it was not for the court to decide whether or not a product was misbranded under the Pure Food and Drug Act; rather, this determination should be left to experts in health and medicine. They also took issue with what they saw as an overly broad interpretation of "misbranding," arguing that such an expansive definition could potentially criminalize honest mistakes made by manufacturers who were acting in good faith. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on commerce if businesses were held liable for unintentional errors or omissions on their labels.