In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Brothers, Inc., 1940, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bunte Brothers, a candy manufacturer accused by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of unfair competition practices. The FTC had claimed that Bunte Brothers was selling its product at a lower price in certain areas to undercut competitors and create a monopoly. However, upon review, it was found that there were no federal laws prohibiting such pricing strategies at that time. The court held that while this practice may be deemed unethical or harmful to small businesses on some level; legally speaking it did not violate any existing antitrust legislation as long as prices weren't set below cost with an intent to eliminate competition entirely. Therefore, without clear evidence demonstrating predatory intentions or monopolistic outcomes from these actions taken by Bunte Brothers Inc., they could not be held liable for their differential pricing strategy under current law.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Brothers, Inc., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of federal power over commerce. He believed that the case did not involve interstate commerce and therefore should have been outside of FTC jurisdiction. The candy in question was manufactured and sold within Illinois, with no evidence to suggest it had any direct effect on other states' markets or competition therein. Thus, he contended that this case represented an unwarranted intrusion by the federal government into purely local affairs which could set a troubling precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.