In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC had accused Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company of violating antitrust laws by selling its products at lower prices to some customers while charging higher prices to others for identical goods, a practice known as price discrimination. This was deemed unfair competition under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The court held that such discriminatory pricing practices could indeed stifle competition and were therefore unlawful. Furthermore, it stated that direct injury to competitors wasn't necessary for a finding of violation; potential harm to competition sufficed. Thus, this ruling reinforced FTC's authority in preventing business practices that are detrimental to fair market competition.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's order against Goodyear was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't substantial evidence proving that Goodyear had engaged in unfair competition by selling its tires at lower prices in certain markets, which is what FTC claimed. They pointed out inconsistencies and gaps in FTC’s case, including a lack of proof showing how these alleged price discriminations affected commerce or created a monopoly. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of Section 2(a) of Clayton Act as amended by Robinson-Patman Act used by majority to justify their ruling; according to them this section didn’t cover geographical price discrimination unless it substantially lessened competition or tended towards creating a monopoly - something not proven here.