In the United States v. Colgate & Company case of 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that a company could legally choose who it does business with under certain circumstances. The U.S government accused Colgate & Company of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by refusing to sell its products directly to retailers and wholesalers who sold them below a specific price set by Colgate. However, in its ruling, the court stated that since there was no agreement or contract between parties forcing them to maintain resale prices, this did not constitute an illegal restraint on trade as per Section 1 of Sherman Act. This decision essentially meant that manufacturers could establish "suggested" retail prices for their goods without being guilty of anti-competitive practices.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Colgate & Company case argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Act was too narrow and failed to consider its broader implications on market competition. The dissent believed that Colgate & Co.'s policy of setting resale prices for their products, even if it did not involve explicit agreements with retailers, constituted a form of price-fixing and thus violated antitrust laws. They contended that such practices could potentially lead to monopolistic control over markets by allowing manufacturers to dictate retail pricing strategies, thereby undermining free competition. This perspective emphasized an expansive view of antitrust legislation aimed at preserving competitive business environments rather than focusing solely on formal contractual arrangements between companies.