In the United States v. Olympic Radio & Television, Inc., 1954 case, the Supreme Court examined whether a manufacturer could legally set minimum retail prices for its products sold by independent dealers. The court ruled in favor of Olympic Radio & Television, stating that it was not illegal per se under the Sherman Act for a manufacturer to fix minimum resale prices when such action is part of a larger contractual agreement with an independent dealer who has accepted those terms voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence from the manufacturer. This decision clarified that price-fixing arrangements are not inherently unlawful but must be evaluated on their individual merits and circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Olympic Radio & Television, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a corporation liable for antitrust violations committed by its subsidiary contradicted established principles of corporate law and policy considerations underlying antitrust laws. The dissent emphasized that corporations are separate legal entities, even when one is wholly owned by another, and therefore should be treated as such in terms of liability. It was also pointed out that holding a parent company responsible for its subsidiary's actions could discourage investment and stifle competition - outcomes contrary to the goals of antitrust legislation. Furthermore, it was contended that there were other means available under existing law to penalize individuals who use corporations as shields for illegal activities without resorting to piercing the corporate veil.