United States Leading Case anti competitive agreements

Ohio v American Express Co

585 U.S. 529 (2018)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtUS Supreme Court

Year2018

StatusBinding authority

Summary

In two-sided transaction markets, Section 1 rule-of-reason plaintiffs must prove net anticompetitive effects across both sides of the platform.

Key Principle

In two-sided markets, plaintiffs must prove anticompetitive effects on both sides of the platform to establish a Section 1 violation under the rule of reason.

Area of Law

competition

Related Cases

ACCC v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77

Full Federal Court considered the test for substantially lessening competition under s.50 CCA in the context of a rail freight acquisition.

ACCC v Yazaki Corporation (2018) 262 CLR 1

HCA upheld record cartel penalties for wire harness market conduct, affirming that penalties must deter contravener and others, considering nature, extent, and duration of cartel.

ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 78

Full Federal Court considered whether Pfizer's patent evergreening strategy in the pharmaceutical market constituted misuse of market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Ohio v American Express Co and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Ohio v American Express Co