31:
615:
375:
meritorious federal claims, which runs counter to the purpose of the FAA ("No rational actor would bring a claim worth tens of thousands of dollars if doing so meant incurring costs in the hundreds of thousands"). The contract also violates the
Sherman Act by depriving parties of a chance to challenge allegedly monopolistic conduct.
353:
The prohibitively high cost of arbitration is not a sufficient reason for a court to overrule an arbitration clause that forbids class action suits. Federal law does not guarantee that a claim will be resolved affordably. The fact that it can be more expensive to litigate individual arbitrations than
395:
stated that: "The Court’s decision makes it likely that many federal statutes will no longer be enforced privately in certain contexts, further weakening a judicially created principle that was already difficult to apply. Thus, it is now up to
Congress to determine whether, and in what contexts, it
374:
joined, wrote in her dissent that: The purpose of the FAA is to resolve disputes and facilitate compensation of injuries. By barring any means of sharing or shrinking arbitration costs, the arbitration clause in the
American Express form contract functions to confer immunity from potentially
332:
reversed and remanded, holding that because of the prohibitive costs respondents would face if they had to arbitrate, the class-action waiver was unenforceable and arbitration could not proceed. The
Circuit stood by its reversal when this Court remanded in light of
328:(FAA), but respondents countered that the cost of expert analysis necessary to prove the antitrust claims would greatly exceed the maximum recovery for an individual plaintiff. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuits. The
619:
648:
529:
483:
420:
329:
143:
118:
79:
345:
Is
American Express Company's arbitration clause prohibiting class action suits enforceable, even though it would compel arbitration of antitrust claims?
389:, has led to a fear that businesses will adopt arbitration en masse, which will effectively prohibit effective antitrust enforcement. A 2013 analysis in
354:
they are worth does not negate the right to pursue a statutory remedy. Therefore, no exception to the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) can be applied.
160:
The prohibitively high cost of arbitration is not a sufficient reason for a court to overrule an arbitration clause that forbids class action suits.
439:
312:
and provide that there "shall be no right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated on a class action basis." Respondents nonetheless filed a
653:
643:
638:
308:
and a subsidiary, and respondents, merchants who accept
American Express cards, require all of their disputes to be resolved by
604:
524:
385:
35:
551:
321:
337:, which held that a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration absent an agreement to do so.
552:
How
Italian Colors Guts Private Antitrust Enforcement by Replacing it with Ineffective Forms of Arbitration
293:
396:
favors contractual freedom in arbitration agreements over private enforcement of federal statutes."
623:
577:
325:
275:
533:
487:
424:
317:
147:
122:
74:
586:
441:
The
Supreme Court 2012 Term: Leading Cases: Section II: Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure
416:
8:
367:
203:
125:
536:
490:
391:
63:
463:
305:
139:
129:
110:
219:
195:
191:
371:
207:
183:
632:
313:
215:
175:
595:
506:
363:
309:
227:
86:
265:
Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
467:
134:
114:
324:. Petitioners moved to compel individual arbitration under the
30:
507:"American Express Co., et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant"
107:
320:
and seeking treble damages for the class under §4 of the
54:
American
Express Co., et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
649:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
480:
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
335:
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
316:, claiming that petitioners violated section 1 of the
573:, No. 12-133, 570 U.S. 228 (2013) is available from:
244:Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
630:
24:American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant
435:
433:
132:(2d Cir. 2011), adhered to on rehearing
605:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
571:Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.
555:, 38 Fordham Int'l L.J. 771 (2015).
548:
413:Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.
285:Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.
631:
501:
499:
430:
406:
18:2013 United States Supreme Court case
525:AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
496:
386:AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
13:
654:United States arbitration case law
622:from websites or documents of the
304:An agreement between petitioners,
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
665:
644:United States Supreme Court cases
563:
260:Kagan, joined by Breyer, Ginsburg
128: (2010); on remand, 634 F.3d
618: This article incorporates
613:
459:In re Am. Express Merchs. Litig.
104:In re Am. Express Merchs. Litig.
29:
378:
142:(2d Cir. 2012); cert. granted,
639:2013 in United States case law
542:
517:
473:
451:
1:
399:
299:
117:2009); vacated and remanded,
7:
294:United States Supreme Court
10:
670:
596:Oyez (oral argument audio)
357:
348:
383:This case, combined with
274:
269:
264:
256:
248:
240:
235:
169:
164:
159:
154:
99:
94:
69:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
624:United States Government
550:
340:
288:, 570 U.S. 228 (2013), (
43:Argued February 27, 2013
326:Federal Arbitration Act
276:Federal Arbitration Act
620:public domain material
296:case decided in 2013.
85:133 S. Ct. 2304; 186
45:Decided June 20, 2013
464:554 F.3d 300
366:, with whom Justice
204:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
392:Harvard Law Review
180:Associate Justices
281:
280:
661:
617:
616:
609:
603:
600:
594:
591:
585:
582:
576:
557:
556:
554:
546:
540:
521:
515:
514:
503:
494:
477:
471:
461:
455:
449:
448:268, 278 (2013).
447:
437:
428:
410:
306:American Express
290:"Italian Colors"
165:Court membership
150:1006 (2012).
33:
32:
21:
20:
669:
668:
664:
663:
662:
660:
659:
658:
629:
628:
614:
607:
601:
598:
592:
589:
583:
580:
574:
566:
561:
560:
549:Einer Elhauge,
547:
543:
522:
518:
505:
504:
497:
478:
474:
457:
456:
452:
445:
438:
431:
427:___ (2013).
411:
407:
402:
381:
360:
351:
343:
302:
220:Sonia Sotomayor
218:
206:
196:Clarence Thomas
194:
192:Anthony Kennedy
90:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
667:
657:
656:
651:
646:
641:
611:
610:
578:Google Scholar
565:
564:External links
562:
559:
558:
541:
516:
495:
472:
450:
429:
404:
403:
401:
398:
380:
377:
359:
356:
350:
347:
342:
339:
330:Second Circuit
301:
298:
279:
278:
272:
271:
267:
266:
262:
261:
258:
254:
253:
250:
246:
245:
242:
238:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
208:Stephen Breyer
184:Antonin Scalia
181:
178:
173:
167:
166:
162:
161:
157:
156:
152:
151:
101:
97:
96:
92:
91:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
666:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
636:
634:
627:
625:
621:
606:
597:
588:
579:
572:
568:
567:
553:
545:
538:
535:
531:
527:
526:
520:
512:
508:
502:
500:
492:
489:
485:
481:
476:
469:
465:
460:
454:
446:Harv. L. Rev.
443:
442:
436:
434:
426:
422:
418:
414:
409:
405:
397:
394:
393:
388:
387:
376:
373:
369:
365:
355:
346:
338:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
297:
295:
291:
287:
286:
277:
273:
268:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:Case opinions
234:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
177:
174:
172:Chief Justice
171:
170:
168:
163:
158:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
131:
127:
124:
120:
116:
112:
109:
105:
102:
98:
93:
88:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
612:
570:
544:
539: (2011).
523:
519:
511:www.oyez.org
510:
493: (2010).
479:
475:
458:
453:
440:
412:
408:
390:
384:
382:
379:Significance
370:and Justice
361:
352:
344:
334:
314:class action
303:
289:
284:
283:
282:
270:Laws applied
223:
216:Samuel Alito
211:
199:
187:
176:John Roberts
133:
103:
95:Case history
78:
53:
15:
470: 2009).
322:Clayton Act
318:Sherman Act
310:arbitration
249:Concurrence
228:Elena Kagan
138:, 667 F.3d
633:Categories
415:, No.
400:References
300:Background
60:Docket no.
87:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
569:Text of
368:Ginsburg
362:Justice
241:Majority
468:2d Cir.
358:Dissent
349:Holding
292:) is a
257:Dissent
155:Holding
135:en banc
115:2d Cir.
608:
602:
599:
593:
590:
587:Justia
584:
581:
575:
528:,
482:,
466: (
462:,
444:, 127
419:,
417:12-133
372:Breyer
252:Thomas
226:
224:·
222:
214:
212:·
210:
202:
200:·
198:
190:
188:·
186:
106:, 554
64:12-133
532:
486:
423:
364:Kagan
341:Issue
146:
121:
100:Prior
77:228 (
534:U.S.
488:U.S.
425:U.S.
148:U.S.
126:1103
123:U.S.
108:F.3d
80:more
75:U.S.
73:570
537:333
530:563
491:662
484:559
421:570
144:568
140:204
130:187
119:559
111:300
89:417
635::
626:.
509:.
498:^
432:^
513:.
113:(
83:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.