In the 1934 case of Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, District Attorney, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Spielman Motor Sales Company. The company had been indicted for conspiracy to violate a New York law that prohibited selling or offering to sell contracts on cars not yet acquired by the seller (futures). The indictment was based on an agreement between Spielman and another party where they would buy cars at a future date from each other at prices fixed in their contract. However, both parties were authorized car dealers who regularly bought and sold automobiles as part of their business operations. The court held that this transaction did not constitute a violation under state law because it wasn't speculative but rather part of regular business practice between two legitimate automobile dealerships with intent to deliver actual goods upon payment completion. Therefore, such transactions could not be considered illegal futures trading under existing laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting false advertising of used cars violated the First Amendment rights of businesses. The dissenting justices believed that while consumer protection is important, it should not come at the expense of free speech rights. They contended that businesses should have some leeway in how they advertise their products and services as long as they are not engaging in outright fraud or deception. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential overreach by state governments into business practices and warned against setting a precedent where states could regulate commercial speech too heavily.