Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 46

22 

OHIO v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

ing the Court of Appeals.  That is because, as the majority
is forced to admit, the plaintiffs made the factual showing
that the majority thinks is required.  See ante, at 17. 

Recall  why  it  is  that  the  majority  says  that  market
definition matters: because if the relevant market includes 
both  merchant-related  services  and  card-related  services, 
then the plaintiffs had the burden to show that as a result 
of  the  nondiscrimination  provisions,  “the  price  of  credit-
card  transactions”—considering  both  fees  charged  to 
merchants  and  rewards  paid  to  cardholders—“was  higher 
than  the  price  one  would  expect  to  find  in  a  competitive
market.”  Ante, at 16.  This mirrors the Court of Appeals’
holding  that  the  Government  had  to  show  that  the  “non­
discrimination  provisions”  had  “made  all  [American  Ex­
press]  customers  on  both  sides  of  the  platform—i.e.,  both 
merchants and cardholders—worse off overall.”  838 F. 3d, 
at 205. 

The  problem  with  this  reasoning,  aside  from  it  being 
wrong,  is  that  the  majority  admits  that  the  plaintiffs  did 
show this: they “offer[ed] evidence” that American Express
“increased  the  percentage  of  the  purchase  price  that  it
charges  merchants  . . .  and  that  this  increase  was  not
entirely spent on cardholder rewards.”  Ante, 17 (citing 88
F. Supp. 3d,  at  195–197,  215).    Indeed,  the  plaintiffs  did 
not  merely  “offer  evidence”  of  this—they  persuaded  the
District  Court,  which  made  an  unchallenged  factual  find­
ing  that  the  merchant  price  increases  that  resulted  from
the  nondiscrimination  provisions  “were  not  wholly  offset 
by  additional  rewards  expenditures  or  otherwise  passed 
through to cardholders, and resulted in a higher net price.” 
Id., at 215 (emphasis added). 

In  the  face  of  this  problem,  the  majority  retreats  to
saying  that  even  net  price  increases  do  not  matter  after
all, absent a showing of lower output, because if output is
increasing,  “ ‘rising  prices  are  equally  consistent  with 
growing  product  demand.’ ”  Ante,  at  18  (quoting  Brooke