In the 1950 case Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had accused Standard Oil Company of violating Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act by giving preferential discounts to certain customers without offering those same discounts to others, which was considered a form of price discrimination. The company argued that these were quantity-based discounts and thus exempt from this section under another clause in the act. However, it was found that not all large-quantity buyers received these rebates and some small-quantity buyers did receive them; hence they could not be classified as quantity-based discounts but rather discriminatory practices against competitors. Therefore, it was held that Standard Oil's actions constituted unfair methods of competition under Section 5(a)1of FTC Act and violated anti-discrimination provisions set forth by Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission case argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act, which prohibits discriminatory pricing practices in interstate commerce. The dissenters believed that this section should not be applied to cases where there is no evidence of price discrimination harming competition or creating monopolies, as it was intended to prevent such outcomes rather than regulate all forms of price differentiation. They contended that Standard Oil’s practice of giving discounts to large-volume buyers did not necessarily harm competition but could instead stimulate it by encouraging efficiency and economies of scale. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how the law had been interpreted and enforced previously, arguing for a more nuanced understanding based on legislative intent and economic realities rather than rigid literal interpretation.