Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

OHIO v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 

Opinion of the Court 

to  demonstrate  that  the  procompetitive  efficiencies  could
be  reasonably  achieved  through  less  anticompetitive 
means.  See  1  Kalinowski  §12.02[1];  Capital  Imaging 
Assoc., supra, at 543. 

Here, the parties ask us to decide whether the plaintiffs
have  carried  their  initial  burden  of  proving  that  Amex’s 
antisteering  provisions  have  an  anticompetitive  effect. 
The plaintiffs can make this showing directly or indirectly.
Direct evidence of anticompetitive effects would be “ ‘proof
of  actual  detrimental  effects  [on  competition],’ ”  FTC  v. 
Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U. S. 447, 460 (1986), 
such  as  reduced  output,  increased  prices,  or  decreased 
quality in the relevant market, see 1 Kalinowski §12.02[2]; 
Craftsman  Limousine,  Inc.  v.  Ford  Motor  Co.,  491  F. 3d 
381,  390  (CA8  2007);  Virginia  Atlantic  Airways  Ltd.  v. 
British  Airways  PLC,  257  F. 3d  256,  264  (CA2  2001).
Indirect  evidence  would  be  proof  of  market  power  plus 
some evidence that the challenged restraint harms compe-
tition.  See  1  Kalinowski  §12.02[2];  Tops  Markets,  Inc.  v. 
Quality Markets, Inc., 142 F. 3d 90, 97 (CA2 1998); Span-
ish Broadcasting System of Fla. v. Clear Channel Commu-
nications, Inc., 376 F. 3d 1065, 1073 (CA11 2004).

Here, the plaintiffs rely exclusively on direct evidence to
prove  that  Amex’s  antisteering  provisions  have  caused 
anticompetitive  effects  in  the  credit-card  market.6    To  
assess  this  evidence,  we  must  first  define  the  relevant 
market.  Once defined, it becomes clear that the plaintiffs’ 
evidence is insufficient to carry their burden. 

A 
Because  “[l]egal  presumptions  that  rest  on  formalistic
distinctions rather than actual market realities are gener-
ally  disfavored  in  antitrust  law,”  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  v. 
—————— 

6 Although the plaintiffs relied on indirect evidence below, they have
abandoned that argument in this Court.  See Brief for United States 23, 
n. 4 (citing Pet. for Cert. i, 18–25).