Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Brief for Amici Curiae John M. Connor, Martin Gaynor, Daniel Mcfadden, Roger Noll, Jeffrey M. Perloff, Joseph A. Stiglitz, Lawrence J. White, and Ralph A. Winter in Support of Petitioners; In the Supreme Court of the United States; States of Ohio, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont, Petitioners v. American Express Company, and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Respondents.

Authors: Gaynor, Martin; Connor, John M.; McFadden, Daniel; Noll, Roger; Perloff, Jeffrey M.; Stiglitz, Joseph A.; White, Lawrence J.; +1 Authors

Brief for Amici Curiae John M. Connor, Martin Gaynor, Daniel Mcfadden, Roger Noll, Jeffrey M. Perloff, Joseph A. Stiglitz, Lawrence J. White, and Ralph A. Winter in Support of Petitioners; In the Supreme Court of the United States; States of Ohio, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont, Petitioners v. American Express Company, and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Respondents.

Abstract

The court erred by: (1) assuming that that the characterization of the Amex service as a two-sided platform should fundamentally change the antitrust principles that govern the Amex restraints, (2) misunderstanding the nature of competition in two-sided markets, (3) placing the burden on plaintiffs to disprove that the harm from supracompetitive merchant fees are not outweighed by benefits to third parties (cardholders in this case), and most importantly (4) disregarding the critical antitrust issue – the impacts of the Amex merchant anti-steering and pricing restraints on competition among credit card platforms.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    2
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
2
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!