In the case of United States Steel Corp. et al. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., 1976, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a package deal offered by U.S Steel to Fortner Enterprises did not constitute an antitrust violation under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 3 of the Clayton Act. The court found that while U.S Steel had indeed tied two products together in their sale (prefabricated houses and credit), this alone was insufficient evidence for an illegal tying arrangement as there was no proof that it possessed sufficient economic power in either market to restrain competition significantly. Furthermore, it was determined that Fortner could have obtained similar financing elsewhere at comparable rates which further undermined its claim against U.S Steel's alleged monopolistic practices.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision expanded Section 2 of the Clayton Act beyond its intended scope and purpose. He contended that tying arrangements should only be considered illegal if they involve a substantial volume of commerce in the tied product market, which was not demonstrated in this case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "sufficient economic power," arguing it should refer to an unusual ability to attract customers or dictate terms due to unique factors about a product rather than simply offering attractive credit terms as U.S Steel did here. In his view, such broad interpretation could potentially make any seller who offers more favorable credit terms liable under antitrust laws - an outcome he believed Congress never intended when drafting these laws.