Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

the  loyalty  of  its  cardholders,  Amex  must  continually
invest in its rewards program.  But, to fund those invest-
ments, Amex must charge merchants higher fees than its
rivals.  Even  though  Amex’s  investments  benefit  mer-
chants  by  encouraging  cardholders  to  spend  more  money, 
merchants  would  prefer  not  to  pay  the  higher  fees.    One 
way that merchants try to avoid them, while still enticing 
Amex’s  cardholders  to  shop  at  their  stores,  is  by  dissuad-
ing cardholders from using Amex at the point of sale.  This 
practice is known as “steering.”

Amex has prohibited steering since the 1950s by placing 
antisteering  provisions  in  its  contracts  with  merchants. 
These  antisteering  provisions  prohibit  merchants  from
implying  a  preference  for  non-Amex  cards;  dissuading 
customers  from  using  Amex  cards;  persuading  customers
to  use  other  cards;  imposing  any  special  restrictions, 
conditions,  disadvantages,  or  fees  on  Amex  cards;  or  pro-
moting  other  cards  more  than  Amex.    The  antisteering
provisions do not, however, prevent merchants from steer-
ing customers toward debit cards, checks, or cash. 

C 
In  October  2010,  the  United  States  and  several  States 
(collectively,  plaintiffs)  sued  Amex,  claiming  that  its  an-
tisteering  provisions  violate  §1  of  the  Sherman  Act,  26 
Stat.  209,  as  amended,  15  U. S. C.  §1.5    After  a  7-week 
trial,  the  District  Court  agreed  that  Amex’s  antisteering 
provisions  violate  §1.  United  States  v.  American  Express 
Co.,  88  F. Supp.  3d  143,  151–152  (EDNY  2015).    It  found 
that  the  credit-card  market  should  be  treated  as  two 
separate  markets—one  for  merchants  and  one  for  card-
holders.  See id., at 171–175.  Evaluating the effects on the 
—————— 

5 Plaintiffs  also  sued  Visa  and  MasterCard,  claiming  that  their  anti-
steering  provisions  violated  §1.    But  Visa  and  MasterCard  voluntarily
revoked  their  antisteering  provisions  and  are  no  longer  parties  to  this 
case.