Supreme Court's American Express Decision Seen Having Tech Antitrust Implications
Some experts and advocacy groups criticized the Supreme Court's 5-4 Ohio v. American Express issued Monday as having significant implications for tech firms in two-sided markets. The dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer raised the idea of the opinion treating internet…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
retailers differently from other businesses in antitrust evaluations. It's "an enormous setback for consumers who rely upon the antitrust laws to promote market competition," Public Knowledge said, "a particularly dangerous setback that will open the door for communications and internet platforms to continue building dominant market positions virtually impenetrable to innovation from smaller competitors." The decision was "a HUGE victory for platform providers who can now escape antitrust liability" by claiming -- and not proving -- even a fraction of overages on one side of the two-sided market went to customers on the other side, tweeted economist Hal Singer. Open Markets Institute called the decision "a huge and intellectually unjustifiable obstacle to effective antitrust enforcement." OMI said special treatment of two-sided markets "greatly rais[es] the burden that plaintiffs must carry at the very earliest stages of litigation" and gives more power to monopolies. OMI said it argued in its amicus brief that federal law traditionally looked at both credit card companies and communications firms as intermediaries, but the decision makes tech platforms into "de facto regulators of these markets." OMI said DOJ and the FTC should "use their full legal authorities" to "limit the damage from this poorly reasoned decision" and Congress should "take immediate action." Others defended the decision. The court was "exactly right" when it said plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof when they focused on the fees paid by merchants, tweeted International Center for Law & Economics Executive Director Geoffrey Manne. "Gov’t can’t meet its burden by showing 'some' effect on 'some part' of the market. Output didn’t go down and price didn’t go up. If it were pointing to a real effect, they would have." The U.S. and states sued AmEx for contractual provisions with merchants stopping them from steering consumers from using their credit cards in favor of another that charges lower merchant fees. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion holding anti-steering provisions don't violate the Sherman Act.