In the case of Simpson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 1969, Robert L. Simpson sued Union Oil Company for alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act after his service station franchise was terminated by the company due to non-renewal of lease agreement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Simpson stating that a franchisor cannot terminate a franchise without cause or use its power to coerce a dealer into purchasing products at inflated prices under threat of termination. This decision established an important precedent in antitrust law regarding vertical price fixing and clarified that it is illegal for companies to force their dealers into buying goods at fixed prices under threat or coercion.

In the dissenting opinion for Simpson v. Union Oil Co. of California, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a terminated franchisee to sue under antitrust laws could potentially harm small businesses and consumers by discouraging franchising as a business model. The dissenting justices believed that the case should have been decided based on contract law rather than antitrust law, arguing that there was no evidence of monopolistic behavior or intent by Union Oil Company in this particular instance. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition and consumer choice if large companies were deterred from franchising due to fear of litigation under antitrust laws.