October Term 2017 · Docket 16-1454

Does Amex's ban on steering cardholders violate antitrust law?

Ohio and other states argue Amex's rules block price competition. Amex claims the rules boost consumer rewards and market share.

Official caption
Ohio v. American Express Co.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Stewart argued the Second Circuit made two fundamental errors.

    Mr. Stewart claimed Amex's rules eliminate price competition across the market.

    Mr. Chesler argued Amex offers consumers what they want to compete.

    Mr. Chesler stated transaction volume has increased dramatically against larger rivals.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether Amex's anti-steering rules harm competition. Ohio argues the rules eliminate price competition. Amex argues the rules increase consumer benefits and market share.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Ohio wants the Court to find Amex's rules violate antitrust law.

Amex wants the Court to uphold the Second Circuit's ruling.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Ohio argues Amex's rules eliminate price competition across the market.

Amex argues its rules increase consumer rewards and transaction volume.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Gorsuch asked if evidence shows consumers pay a net price increase.

Justice Gorsuch asked if the evidence proves restricted output in this case.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines how courts analyze two-sided markets. It determines whether loyalty programs count as consumer benefits. It shapes future antitrust enforcement against platform businesses.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON