Law Commons^™

The Abuse Of Offsets As Procompetitive Justification: Restoring The Proper Role Of Efficiencies After Ohio V. American Express And Ncaa V. Alston, Ted Tatos, Hal Singer

Georgia State University Law Review

Under the rule-of-reason framework, litigation involving the NCAA has condoned the practice of crediting purported benefits to one group as an “offset” to antitrust injury suffered by another. Although the Ohio v. American Express decision addressed countervailing effects on merchants versus cardholders within the same two-sided market (credit cards), NCAA v. Alston, consistent with the 1986 NCAA v. Board of Regents decision, acknowledged procompetitive justifications that occur in an entirely different market (the output market for viewing sporting events) than the market in which harm occurred (the labor market for college athletes). Both cases elevated the welfare of consumers above …

The Impact Of Amex And Its Progeny On Technology Platforms, Kacyn H. Fujii

Michigan Law Review

Big Tech today faces unprecedented levels of antitrust scrutiny. Yet antitrust enforcement against Big Tech still faces a major obstacle: the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Ohio v. American Express. Popularly called Amex, the case imposed a higher initial burden on antitrust plaintiffs in cases involving two-sided markets. Two-sided markets connect two distinct, noncompeting groups of customers on a shared platform. These platforms have indirect network effects, meaning that one group of customers benefits when more of the second group of customers joins the platform. Two-sided markets are ubiquitous in the technology sector, encompassing social media, search engines, …

Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar

Seattle University Law Review

In Ohio v. American Express, both the majority and dissent introduced into Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence a new test for evaluating restraints under the rule of reason: a less restrictive alternatives test. Occasionally appearing in circuit court cases, less restrictive alternatives tests have not been part of Supreme Court’s approach to the rule of reason, which generally evaluates restraints of trade by balancing their anticompetitive and procompetitive effects.

American Express was the first Supreme Court case to mention a less restrictive alternatives test, potentially representing a major shift in antitrust law, but it was not the last. In 2021’s …