In the case of United States v. Durkee Famous Foods, Inc., 1938, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a food product could be considered misbranded under the Federal Food and Drug Act if its label contained false or misleading statements about its ingredients. The defendant, Durkee Famous Foods, had been selling a product labeled as "salad dressing" that did not contain any eggs - an ingredient typically found in salad dressings at that time. The government argued this constituted misbranding under federal law because it misled consumers into believing they were purchasing traditional salad dressing when they were not. However, Durkee contended their labeling was accurate since there is no standard definition for what constitutes 'salad dressing'. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government stating that even though there may be no fixed recipe for salad dressing; omitting key ingredients traditionally associated with it can lead to consumer deception thus constituting misbranding.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Durkee Famous Foods, Inc., case argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(e) of the Clayton Act was too broad and could potentially lead to unfair results. The dissent believed that this section should only apply when a seller discriminates between different buyers by offering promotional services or facilities to some but not others. They contended that if a seller offers these services or facilities to all its customers on proportionally equal terms, then there is no discrimination as defined by Section 2(e). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that providing such services for free constitutes payment or consideration under this law. Instead, they argued it should be seen as part of a single sales transaction where goods are sold at a certain price which includes any additional benefits offered by the seller.