Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 52

28 

OHIO v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

factual findings were to the contrary.  As I laid out above, 
the District Court found that the nondiscrimination provi­
sions  in  fact  did  prevent  Discover  from  pursuing  a  low­
merchant-fee business model, by “den[ying] merchants the 
ability  to  express  a  preference  for  Discover  or  to  employ 
any other tool by which they might steer share to Discov­
er’s  lower-priced  network.”    88  F. Supp. 3d,  at  214;  see 
supra,  at  7.    The  majority’s  statements  that  the  nondis­
crimination  provisions  are  procompetitive  are  directly
contradicted by this and other factual findings. 

* 

* 

* 

For the reasons I have explained, the majority’s decision 
in this case is contrary to basic principles of antitrust law, 
and it ignores and contradicts the District Court’s detailed
factual  findings,  which  were  based  on  an  extensive  trial 
record.  I respectfully dissent.