Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

6 

OHIO v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

tracts with merchants.  It called those provisions “nondis­
crimination  provisions.”    They  prohibited  steering  of  the 
forms I have described above (and others as well).  See id., 
at  95a–96a,  100a–101a.  After  placing  them  in  its  agree­
ments, American Express found it could maintain, or even 
raise, its higher merchant prices without losing too many
transactions  to  other  firms.    Id.,  at  195a–198a.    These 
agreements—the  “nondiscrimination  provisions”—led  to
this lawsuit. 

C 
In  2010  the  United  States  and  17  States  brought  this
antitrust  case  against  American  Express.    They  claimed 
that  the  “nondiscrimination  provisions”  in  its  contracts
with  merchants  created  an  unreasonable  restraint  of 
trade.  (Initially  Visa  and  MasterCard  were  also  defend­
ants,  but  they  entered  into  consent  judgments,  dropping 
similar  provisions  from  their  contracts  with  merchants).
After  a  7-week  bench  trial,  the  District  Court  entered 
judgment for the Government, setting forth its findings of
fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  a  97-page  opinion.
88 F. Supp. 3d 143 (EDNY 2015). 

Because  the  majority  devotes  little  attention  to  the
District Court’s detailed factual findings, I will summarize 
some  of  the  more  significant  ones  here.  Among  other
things,  the  District  Court  found  that  beginning  in  2005
and  during  the  next  five  years,  American  Express  raised
the prices it charged merchants on 20 separate occasions. 
See  id.,  at  195–196.    In  doing  so,  American  Express  did 
not  take  account  of  the  possibility  that  large  merchants 
would respond to the price increases by encouraging shop­
pers to use a different credit card because the nondiscrim­
ination  provisions  prohibited  any  such  steering.    Id.,  at 
215.  The  District  Court  pointed  to  merchants’  testimony 
stating that, had it not been for those provisions, the large 
merchants would have responded to the price increases by