Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2012 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. ET AL. v. ITALIAN COLORS 
RESTAURANT ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 12–133.  Argued February 27, 2013—Decided June 20, 2013 

An agreement between petitioners, American Express and a subsidiary,
and respondents, merchants who accept American Express cards, re-
quires all of their disputes to be resolved by arbitration and provides
that  there  “shall  be  no  right  or  authority  for  any  Claims  to  be  arbi-
trated on a class action basis.”  Respondents nonetheless filed a class 
action, claiming that petitioners violated §1 of the Sherman Act and 
seeking treble damages for the class under §4 of the Clayton Act.  Pe-
titioners  moved  to  compel  individual  arbitration  under  the  Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), but respondents countered that the cost of ex-
pert  analysis  necessary  to  prove  the  antitrust  claims  would  greatly
exceed  the  maximum  recovery  for  an  individual  plaintiff.    The  Dis-
trict Court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuits.  The Se-
cond Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that because of the pro-
hibitive  costs  respondents  would  face  if  they  had  to  arbitrate,  the
class-action waiver was unenforceable and arbitration could not pro-
ceed.  The Circuit stood by its reversal when this Court remanded in
light  of  Stolt-Nielsen  S. A.  v.  AnimalFeeds  International  Corp.,  559 
U. S. 662, which held that a party may not be compelled to submit to
class arbitration absent an agreement to do so.  

Held: The FAA does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiv-
er  of  class  arbitration  on  the  ground  that  the  plaintiff’s  cost  of  indi-
vidually  arbitrating  a  federal  statutory  claim  exceeds  the  potential 
recovery.  Pp. 3–10.

(a) The FAA reflects the overarching principle that arbitration is a
matter  of  contract.    See  Rent-A-Center,  West,  Inc.  v.  Jackson,  561 
U. S.  ___,  ___.    Courts  must  “rigorously  enforce”  arbitration  agree-
ments  according  to  their  terms,  Dean  Witter  Reynolds,  Inc.  v.  Byrd,