The U.S. Supreme Court case Spectrum Sports, Inc., et al. v. Shirley McQuillan, et vir, DBA Sorboturf Enterprises (1992) revolved around the interpretation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act which prohibits attempts to monopolize trade or commerce among several states or with foreign nations. The dispute began when both parties attempted to market a product for repairing fiberglass objects and accused each other of unfair competition practices including false advertising and patent infringement. The District Court ruled in favor of McQuillans but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision stating that it was not necessary for Spectrum to have a dangerous probability of success in achieving monopoly power under Section 2; an attempt was enough even if unsuccessful. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, this ruling was overturned unanimously by Justice White who stated that mere engagement in predatory conduct does not violate Section 2 unless there is also proof that such behavior will lead to monopolization - thus establishing a new standard for proving attempted monopolization claims under antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. Shirley McQuillan, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act was too narrow and restrictive. He contended that a company does not need to have complete monopoly power in order to violate this section; it is enough if they attempt to monopolize any part of trade or commerce among several states or with foreign nations. The justice believed that Spectrum Sports' actions were indeed an attempt at monopolization as they sought exclusive rights from suppliers and used predatory pricing strategies against their competitor Sorboturf Enterprises - even though these tactics did not result in total market control. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision which required proof of a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power for establishing an attempted monopolization claim under Section 2.