The US District Court for the Eastern district of New York reminds that potential defendants in certain Section 1 monopoly cases should be prepared to address a plaintiff’s “direct evidence” of harm to competition and may not be able to solely rely on its relative market share as a defense (American Express)

Court Rules Against American Express Based on Both Direct and Indirect Evidence of Harm to Competition* On February 19, 2015, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued its ruling on liability in United States v. American Express. Following a seven-week trial, the Court found that American Express violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing certain restrictions on merchants that prevent the merchants from offering their customers incentives to use competing credit cards with lower retail charges. The government alleged, and the Court ultimately concluded, that these “anti-steering” rules restricted competition between the major “general purpose credit card”

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)

Quotation

William Cavanaugh, Robert P. LoBue, Jonathan H. Hatch, The US District Court for the Eastern district of New York reminds that potential defendants in certain Section 1 monopoly cases should be prepared to address a plaintiff’s “direct evidence” of harm to competition and may not be able to solely rely on its relative market share as a defense (American Express), 19 February 2015, e-Competitions Bulletin Financial services, Art. N° 71834

Visites 80

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues