In the case of United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar (1923), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a product can be considered misbranded even if its label does not contain false information. The Douglas Packing Company was accused of selling apple cider vinegar which was made from dried apples rather than fresh ones as implied by their labeling and advertising practices. While technically accurate in terms of ingredients used, it was deemed misleading because consumers would reasonably expect "apple cider vinegar" to be made from fresh apples based on common understanding and usage of these words. Therefore, despite no explicit falsehoods being present on the labels themselves, they were still found to constitute misbranding under the Pure Food and Drug Act due to their potential for creating mistaken impressions among buyers about the nature or quality of goods.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar case, it was argued that the majority's decision to condemn and destroy Douglas Packing Company's product on grounds of misbranding was too harsh a punishment. The dissenters believed that while there may have been some ambiguity in labeling which could potentially lead consumers to believe they were purchasing pure apple cider vinegar rather than diluted vinegar made from dried apples, this did not necessarily constitute fraudulent intent on part of the company. They also pointed out that no harm had come to any consumer as a result of using this product and thus destroying it seemed excessive. Furthermore, they contended that if every instance of ambiguous labeling led to such drastic consequences for manufacturers then many common products would be at risk - an outcome not intended by lawmakers when drafting food safety regulations.