In the United States v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that DuPont's ownership of a significant share in General Motors (GM) violated antitrust laws. The court held that even though GM and DuPont were not direct competitors, their relationship could still stifle competition within the automobile industry by creating barriers for other companies to enter or succeed in this market. This was due to DuPont supplying automotive finishes and fabrics exclusively to GM which resulted in an unfair competitive advantage over other suppliers who might want to do business with GM but couldn't because of its close ties with Dupont. Therefore, it was concluded that such interlocking relationships between companies can potentially limit competition and violate antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to break up DuPont's ownership of General Motors (GM) stock was based on a misinterpretation of antitrust laws and an incorrect application of legal principles. The dissenters believed that there was no evidence showing that DuPont had used its GM shares to stifle competition or create a monopoly, which are key considerations under antitrust law. They also disagreed with the majority’s view that potential power could be equated with actual power in determining whether anti-competitive behavior existed; they felt this approach went beyond what Congress intended when it enacted antitrust legislation. Furthermore, they criticized the court for not considering other factors such as market realities and economic conditions before deciding on divestiture as a remedy.