A PYMNTS Company

Competition Law As Common Law: American Express and the Evolution of Antitrust

By  |  May 13, 2020

By A. Douglas Melamed (Stanford)

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    We explore the implications of the widely accepted understanding that competition law is common — or “judge-made” — law. Specifically, we ask how the rule of reason in antitrust law should be shaped and implemented, not just to guide correct application of existing law to the facts of a case, but also to enable courts to participate constructively in the common law-like evolution of antitrust law in the light of changes in economic learning and business and judicial experience. We explore these issues in the context of a recently decided case, Ohio v. American Express, and conclude that the Supreme Court did not apply the rule of reason in a way that enabled an effective common law-like evolution of antitrust law.

    Continue Reading…