This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Michael Kellogg, the case concerns whether a lower‑court decision that refused to enforce an arbitration agreement—because it required class‑action procedures for antitrust claims—was erroneous under the Federal Arbitration Act and the Sherman Act.
According to Michael Kellogg, the petitioners argue that the lower‑court holding is reversible error for three reasons: it has no basis in the FAA or the Sherman Act, it creates an unworkable threshold inquiry, and it is unnecessary for legitimate policy concerns.
According to Respondents, the respondent (Italian Colors Restaurant) contends that multiple claimants in arbitration can share the costs of an expert report.
Background and question before the Court
According to Michael Kellogg, the lower court refused to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement because it believed class‑procedure mechanisms were necessary to vindicate the plaintiff’s antitrust (Sherman Act) claims.
According to Michael Kellogg, the Supreme Court will consider whether the lower court's refusal to enforce the arbitration agreement lacked a basis in the Federal Arbitration Act and the Sherman Act.
What each side argues
Petitioner (American Express Company)
According to Mr. Kellogg, according to Michael Kellogg, the arbitration agreement should be enforced because the lower court’s conditioning on class procedures is wrong under the Supreme Court’s decision in *AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion*.
According to Michael Kellogg, arbitrators should be free to devise efficient, cost‑effective procedures for handling claims, including sharing expert and attorney costs among parties.
According to Plaintiffs, the plaintiff (American Express) argues that without the ability to obtain aggregate damages in a class action, the arbitration would not be worthwhile.
Respondent (Italian Colors Restaurant)
According to Respondents, multiple claimants in arbitration can share the costs of an expert report, reducing the financial burden on each party.
What happened at oral argument
Paul D. Clement argued on behalf of the respondents during oral argument.
Justices Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer, and Kagan asked the parties questions about arbitration procedures, market power, confidentiality, and remedies.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Michael Kellogg, the parties argue that the outcome may affect how courts enforce arbitration agreements in antitrust cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.
According to Mr. Kellogg, according to Michael Kellogg, the case could influence the application of the Supreme Court’s *Concepcion* decision to arbitration agreements conditioned on class‑procedure mechanisms.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9b7b9e003eee2897982f-r1-6c9ca02ab89619ee.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.