The United States Supreme Court case, United States of America v. Antikamnia Chemical Company in 1913 revolved around the misbranding of a drug under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The Antikamnia Chemical Company was accused by the government for not listing acetanilid, a potentially dangerous ingredient, on their product labels. The company argued that they had patented their formula and thus were exempt from disclosing all ingredients as per patent laws at that time. However, the court ruled against them stating that patent rights did not supersede public health regulations mandated by federal law such as those outlined in the Pure Food and Drug Act which required full disclosure of ingredients to protect consumers from potential harm caused by undisclosed substances.

In the dissenting opinion for United States of America v. Antikamnia Chemical Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. He contended that while it is important to ensure companies are not misleading consumers with false or deceptive labels, it is equally crucial to avoid punishing those who have made honest mistakes or minor errors in their labeling practices. In this case, he believed that Antikamnia had acted in good faith and should not be held liable for failing to include a small amount of acetanilid in its ingredient list because they were unaware it was considered a harmful substance under federal law at the time. Furthermore, he emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting any consumer harm resulted from this omission.