United States: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant: The Supreme Court Reaffirms Its Commitment to Enforcing Arbitration Agreements

Last week's Supreme Court decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant builds on a recent line of pro-arbitration rulings – including Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp.1 and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion2 – and reaffirms the Court's commitment to enforcing arbitration agreements. In a 5-3 opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court held in Italian Colors that a contractual provision mandating individual arbitration by means of a class action waiver is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), even if the costs of individual arbitration outweigh the potential recovery. Plaintiffs had argued that the costs of individual arbitration were so high that they would not be able to "effectively vindicate" their federal statutory rights under the antitrust laws. But the Supreme Court shut the door on plaintiffs' repeated efforts to push for the application of this "effective vindication" exception that had been crafted by lower courts (including those in the Second Circuit). That exception had its origins in dicta and had never been applied by the Supreme Court.

In sum, it just got even harder to invalidate mandatory arbitration provisions. The Supreme Court's decision is an "and we really mean it" message to the lower courts when it comes to mandatory arbitration provisions.


In In re American Express Merchants' Litigation, several merchants brought a class-action lawsuit against American Express for alleged antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. Each merchant had signed a contract—the "merchant's agreement"—in order to accept American Express credit cards, and those contracts required individual arbitration of disputes. The district court granted American Express's motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, but the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class action waiver in the merchant agreement was unenforceable under the FAA because it was cost-prohibitive to individually arbitrate an antitrust action, which meant that the plaintiffs could not "effectively vindicate" their federal statutory rights under the antitrust laws.

American Express filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Stolt-Nielsen, which found that parties cannot be forced to engage in class arbitration absent a contractual agreement to do so. On remand, the Second Circuit held that Stolt-Neilsen did not impact its original analysis and again reversed the district court's decision. American Express filed another petition for a writ of certiorari.

While American Express's second petition for certiorari was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concepcion on April 27, 2011. The Second Circuit sua sponte directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the impact of Concepcion. On February 1, 2012, a unanimous panel for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that even in light of Concepcion, the class action waiver provision in the merchant agreement was unenforceable because "it precludes plaintiffs from enforcing their statutory [antitrust] rights."3 The Second Circuit subsequently denied American Express's petition for rehearing en banc, with five judges dissenting.4 For the third time (the opinion was colloquially referred to as "Amex III"), American Express petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 9, 2012.


In the Italian Colors decision, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs'—and the Second Circuit's—arguments that because individually arbitrating antitrust claims would be, it was alleged by plaintiffs, too expensive and not economically rational, the class action waiver thwarted the public policy goals of the antitrust laws and precluded the "effective vindication" of plaintiffs' federal statutory rights. This line of reasoning led plaintiffs to conclude that the parties' arbitration agreement was therefore unenforceable.

The Court found that nothing in the antitrust laws evidenced Congress's intent to override the FAA's policy in favor of arbitration, reasoning that "the antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim." Further, the Court reiterated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's class action mechanisms are "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Here, by agreeing to individual arbitration, American Express and the merchants simply "agreed to arbitrate pursuant to that 'usual rule.'" And the Court determined that the enactment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not "establish an entitlement to class proceedings for the vindication of statutory rights."

Further, although the Court acknowledged that there may be an "effective vindication" exception to the normal rule in favor of arbitration, the Court held that that exception is limited to situations in which an arbitration provision deprives a litigant of the right to bring a claim. Significantly, the Court held that "the fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy." As an example, Justice Scalia hypothesized that "a provision in an arbitration agreement forbidding the assertion of certain statutory rights" would "certainly" be unenforceable because it strips a party of its right to pursue a cause of action altogether. Justice Scalia also suggested that the effective vindication exception "would perhaps cover filing and administrative fees attached to arbitration that are so high as to make access to the forum impracticable," citing the Court's prior decision in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph.5 By contrast, the class action waiver provision in American Express's merchant agreement does not prevent merchants from pursuing their rights under the antitrust laws, it "merely limits arbitration [of those claims] to the two contracting parties."

At heart, however, Concepcion doomed the plaintiffs' claims in Italian Colors. Justice Scalia explained that in Concepcion, "[w]e specifically rejected the argument that class arbitration was necessary to prosecute claims 'that might otherwise slip through the legal system.'" Thus, plaintiffs' argument that class-wide arbitration was necessary to vindicate their federal statutory rights fell flat.

Finally, the Court warned that "[t]he regime established by the Court of Appeals' decision would require . . . that a federal court determine (and the parties litigate) the legal requirements for success on the merits claim by claim and theory by theory, the evidence necessary to meet those requirements, the cost of developing that evidence, and the damages that would be recovered in the event of success." According to the Court, such a burdensome regime is contrary to the FAA, which "does not sanction such a judicially created superstructure."


The Italian Colors decision is not a "game-changer" like Concepcion. But the decision evidences the Supreme Court's continuing commitment to upholding the validity of mandatory arbitration provisions and limiting exceptions to the FAA's policy presumption in favor of arbitration. The Court's opinion sanctions the use of agreements that mandate individual arbitration, despite the fact that the costs of individually litigating the claims in arbitration may outweigh any potential recovery. Companies that employ such provisions no longer have to worry that certain types of high-stake claims brought under federal statutes – such as antitrust actions – can be carved out of an arbitration provision's class action waiver so long as the arbitration agreement does not impose burdens like high filing and administrative fees, outright bars on raising certain issues, or other procedural burdens that are deemed too onerous.


1 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010).

2 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).

3 In re Am. Exp. Merchants' Litig., 667 F.3d 204, 218 (2d Cir. 2012).

4 In re Am. Exp. Merchants' Litig., 681 F. 3d 139 (2d Cir. 2012).

5 531 U. S. 79, 90 (2000) (stating that "[i]t may well be that the existence of large arbitration costs could preclude a litigant . . . from effectively vindicating her federal statutory rights" but still holding that the arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions