The Anticompetitive Effects of Vertical Most-Favored-Nation Restraints and the Error of Amex

D. Carlton
{"title":"The Anticompetitive Effects of Vertical Most-Favored-Nation Restraints and the Error of Amex","authors":"D. Carlton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3328628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Essay explains why the Supreme Court’s economic reasoning in its recent Ohio v. American Express Co. (“Amex”) decision is wrong. The Amex case involved the use of what are called “antisteering” restraints in which a retailer is not allowed to use a variety of tactics to steer a consumer away from using an American Express (“Amex”) card and toward using another payment mechanism. The reason why a merchant might want to do this is because the cost that the merchant incurs when a customer uses an Amex card can be higher than the cost that the merchant incurs when the customer uses either another credit card, debit card, or cash. Although not challenged in the Amex case, the Amex contractual rules also prevent a retailer from imposing a surcharge on customers who use an Amex card to reflect the higher merchant cost. It is interesting to note that some countries—such as Australia—have regulated certain credit card fees, others have forbidden credit card companies from telling merchants that they cannot surcharge, and some states in the United States—such as New York—have forbidden merchants from surcharging. Restraints on surcharging or steering are examples of restraints that Ralph Winter and I call “vertical most-favored-nation restraints,” (“vMFN”) in which one supplier tells a retailer that the retailer cannot set the retail price of its product higher than that of a rival, even if its wholesale price is higher than that of its rival. Such restraints have been the subject of some litigation already, but I expect that with the increasing use of web based platforms where such restraints are often used, litigation regarding such restraints will increase. \nThis Article illustrates the underlying economic logic behind the anticompetitive effect of vMFNs. I then apply the reasoning to credit cards and finally, using the economic framework developed, explain the economic errors in the Court’s Amex decision. For a more detailed discussion, please see the Carlton and Winter paper referenced herein.","PeriodicalId":416291,"journal":{"name":"IO: Firm Structure","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IO: Firm Structure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3328628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

This Essay explains why the Supreme Court’s economic reasoning in its recent Ohio v. American Express Co. (“Amex”) decision is wrong. The Amex case involved the use of what are called “antisteering” restraints in which a retailer is not allowed to use a variety of tactics to steer a consumer away from using an American Express (“Amex”) card and toward using another payment mechanism. The reason why a merchant might want to do this is because the cost that the merchant incurs when a customer uses an Amex card can be higher than the cost that the merchant incurs when the customer uses either another credit card, debit card, or cash. Although not challenged in the Amex case, the Amex contractual rules also prevent a retailer from imposing a surcharge on customers who use an Amex card to reflect the higher merchant cost. It is interesting to note that some countries—such as Australia—have regulated certain credit card fees, others have forbidden credit card companies from telling merchants that they cannot surcharge, and some states in the United States—such as New York—have forbidden merchants from surcharging. Restraints on surcharging or steering are examples of restraints that Ralph Winter and I call “vertical most-favored-nation restraints,” (“vMFN”) in which one supplier tells a retailer that the retailer cannot set the retail price of its product higher than that of a rival, even if its wholesale price is higher than that of its rival. Such restraints have been the subject of some litigation already, but I expect that with the increasing use of web based platforms where such restraints are often used, litigation regarding such restraints will increase. This Article illustrates the underlying economic logic behind the anticompetitive effect of vMFNs. I then apply the reasoning to credit cards and finally, using the economic framework developed, explain the economic errors in the Court’s Amex decision. For a more detailed discussion, please see the Carlton and Winter paper referenced herein.
纵向最惠国限制的反竞争效应与美国运通的错误
这篇文章解释了为什么最高法院在最近的俄亥俄州诉美国运通公司(“美国运通”)案判决中的经济推理是错误的。美国运通卡案涉及到所谓的“反引导”限制的使用,即零售商不得使用各种策略来引导消费者放弃使用美国运通卡,转而使用其他支付机制。商家可能想要这样做的原因是,当客户使用美国运通卡时,商家产生的成本可能高于客户使用其他信用卡、借记卡或现金时,商家产生的成本。尽管在美国运通卡案中没有受到质疑,但美国运通卡的合同规定也禁止零售商向使用美国运通卡的客户收取附加费,以反映较高的商业成本。值得注意的是,一些国家(如澳大利亚)对某些信用卡费用进行了监管,另一些国家禁止信用卡公司告诉商家他们不能收取附加费,而美国的一些州(如纽约)禁止商家收取附加费。我和拉尔夫•温特(Ralph Winter)称之为“垂直最惠国限制”(vertical最惠国限制),即供应商告知零售商,即使其产品的批发价高于竞争对手,零售商也不能将其产品的零售价格设定得高于竞争对手。这样的限制已经成为一些诉讼的主题,但我预计,随着越来越多的基于网络的平台使用这种限制,有关这种限制的诉讼将会增加。本文阐述了虚拟网关反竞争效应背后的潜在经济逻辑。然后,我将推理应用于信用卡,最后,使用所开发的经济框架,解释法院对美国运通的判决中的经济错误。有关更详细的讨论,请参阅此处引用的Carlton和Winter论文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信