In the case of United States et al. v. J.B. Montgomery, Inc., 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government and against J.B Montgomery, a retail store operator who had been selling goods at prices below those stipulated by Fair Trade Laws in California. The retailer was sued for violating these laws which allowed manufacturers to set minimum retail prices for their products with retailers who agreed to such contracts; however, these could not be enforced on non-signing parties prior to this ruling due to an earlier decision (Schwegmann Bros v Calvert Distillers). In this case though, it was decided that if a retailer knowingly induced or received a benefit from a breach of contract between manufacturer and another retailer regarding price maintenance agreements under state law then they too could be held accountable even without being party to original agreement.

In the dissenting opinion for United States et al. v. J.B. Montgomery, Inc., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to allow a private company to sue under Section 4 of the Clayton Act was a misinterpretation of legislative intent and precedent. He contended that this section was intended solely to provide redress for individuals or businesses who suffered direct harm from antitrust violations, not those indirectly affected as in this case where Montgomery had merely passed on overcharges from suppliers engaging in price-fixing onto its customers without suffering any loss itself. Furthermore, he pointed out that allowing such suits could lead to double recovery since both directly and indirectly harmed parties could claim damages for the same violation - an outcome Congress clearly did not intend when drafting these laws.