Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

26 

OHIO v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

card  market  and  promote  interbrand  competition.”    Ante, 
at 19.  The “negative externality” the majority has in mind 
is this: If one merchant persuades a shopper not to use his 
American  Express  card  at  that  merchant’s  store,  that 
shopper  becomes  less  likely  to  use  his  American  Express
card at other merchants’ stores.  Ibid.  The majority wor­
ries that this “endangers the viability of the entire [Ameri­
can  Express]  network,”  ibid.,  but  if  so  that  is  simply  a
consequence  of  American  Express’  merchant  fees  being 
higher  than  a  competitive  market  will  support.    “The 
antitrust laws were enacted for ‘the protection of competi-
tion,  not  competitors.’ ”  Atlantic  Richfield  Co.  v.  USA 
Petroleum  Co.,  495  U. S.  328,  338  (1990).    If  American 
Express’  merchant  fees  are  so  high  that  merchants  suc­
cessfully induce their customers to use other cards, Ameri­
can  Express  can  remedy  that  problem  by  lowering  those 
fees  or  by  spending  more  on  cardholder  rewards  so  that
cardholders decline such requests.  What it may not do is
demand contractual protection from price competition. 

In  any  event,  the  majority  ignores  the  fact  that  the
District Court, in addition to saying what I have just said,
also  rejected  this  argument  on  independent  factual 
grounds.  It  explained  that  American  Express  “presented 
no  expert  testimony,  financial  analysis,  or  other  direct 
evidence  establishing  that  without  its  [nondiscrimination 
provisions] it will, in fact, be unable to adapt its business 
to a more competitive market.”  88 F. Supp. 3d, at 231.  It 
further explained that the testimony that was provided on 
the  topic  “was  notably  inconsistent,”  with  some  of  Ameri­
can Express’ witnesses saying only that invalidation of the 
provisions  “would  require  American  Express  to  adapt  its
current business model.”  Ibid.  After an extensive discus­
sion of the record, the District Court found that “American 
Express  possesses  the  flexibility  and  expertise  necessary 
to adapt its business model to suit a market in which it is
required to compete on both the cardholder and merchant