Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ITALIAN COLORS 
RESTAURANT 
Opinion of the Court 

the  fees  for  competing  credit  cards.1    This  tying  arrange-
ment,  respondents  said,  violated  §1  of  the  Sherman  Act. 
They  sought  treble  damages  for  the  class  under  §4  of  the
Clayton Act.

Petitioners  moved  to  compel  individual  arbitration
under  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  (FAA),  9  U. S. C.  §1 
et seq.   In  resisting  the  motion,  respondents  submitted  a
declaration from an economist who estimated that the cost 
of  an  expert  analysis  necessary  to  prove  the  antitrust 
claims  would  be  “at  least  several  hundred  thousand  dol-
lars,  and  might  exceed  $1  million,”  while  the  maximum 
recovery  for  an  individual  plaintiff  would  be  $12,850,  or
$38,549 when trebled.  App. 93.  The District Court granted 
the  motion  and  dismissed  the  lawsuits.  The  Court  of 
Appeals  reversed  and  remanded  for  further  proceedings.
It  held  that  because  respondents  had  established  that
“they  would  incur  prohibitive  costs  if  compelled  to  arbi-
trate  under  the  class  action  waiver,”  the  waiver  was  un- 
enforceable  and  the  arbitration  could  not  proceed.  In re 
American  Express  Merchants’  Litigation,  554  F. 3d  300, 
315–316 (CA2 2009).

We  granted  certiorari,  vacated  the  judgment,  and  re-
manded  for  further  consideration  in  light  of  Stolt-Nielsen 
S. A.  v.  AnimalFeeds  Int’l  Corp.,  559  U. S.  662  (2010), 
which held that a party may not be compelled to submit to 
class arbitration absent an agreement to do so.  American 
Express  Co.  v.  Italian  Colors  Restaurant,  559  U. S.  1103 
(2010).  The Court of Appeals stood by its reversal, stating 
that  its  earlier  ruling  did  not  compel  class  arbitration. 
In re  American  Express  Merchants’  Litigation,  634  F. 3d 
187,  200  (CA2  2011).  It  then  sua sponte  reconsidered  its 
ruling  in  light  of  AT&T  Mobility  LLC  v.  Concepcion,  563 

—————— 

1 A charge card requires its holder to pay the full outstanding balance
at  the  end  of  a  billing  cycle;  a  credit  card  requires  payment  of  only  a 
portion, with the balance subject to interest.