In the case of United States v. Greater Buffalo Press, Inc., et al., 1970, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a merger between two companies violated antitrust laws. The Department of Justice argued that Greater Buffalo Press's acquisition of its only competitor in Western New York and Pennsylvania would create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The defendants countered that their market was not geographically limited to those areas but extended nationwide due to competition from other suppliers outside these regions who could deliver similar products at comparable prices. They also claimed an exemption under the failing company doctrine as one firm was financially unstable and had no prospective purchaser other than its rival. The District Court initially ruled in favor of Greater Buffalo Press, accepting both arguments presented by them. However, on appeal by the government, this decision was reversed by Supreme Court which held that geographic market definition should be based on commercial realities rather than physical possibilities for delivery or distribution; thus establishing a localized area where competition occurred between these firms before merger took place. Furthermore, it rejected application of failing company defense since there were no efforts made to elicit reasonable alternative offers which might have preserved competition within defined geographical market.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Greater Buffalo Press, Inc., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established antitrust principles and could potentially harm small businesses. He contended that the Sherman Act should not be used to punish companies for engaging in lawful trade practices simply because they have achieved success or dominance in their respective markets. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling might affect other industries where similar business arrangements are common practice. In his view, such an interpretation of antitrust laws would discourage competition rather than promote it as intended by Congress when it enacted these statutes.