In Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court examined whether or not a company could be held liable for price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act, even if it did not have knowledge of its customers' resale prices. The case arose when Tidewater Oil Company was accused by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of selling gasoline to one customer at lower prices than another, thereby violating anti-discrimination laws designed to protect competition and prevent monopolies. However, Tidewater argued that they were unaware of their customers' resale prices and therefore couldn't intentionally discriminate based on these unknown factors. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of FTC stating that a seller can indeed be held accountable for price discrimination regardless of their awareness about buyers’ reselling practices as long as there is reasonable possibility that such pricing might harm competition. This ruling emphasized on protecting competitive conditions rather than individual competitors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) order was incorrect because it did not properly consider whether or not there was substantial evidence supporting the FTC's findings. The dissent contended that, while there may have been some evidence suggesting anti-competitive behavior by Tidewater Oil Co., this evidence was insufficient to justify such a broad and sweeping order from the FTC. Furthermore, they believed that even if there were sufficient grounds for an FTC action against Tidewater, any remedy should be narrowly tailored to address specific instances of wrongdoing rather than imposing wide-ranging restrictions on all aspects of their business operations.