No. 16-1454 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— STATES OF OHIO, CONNECTICUT, IDAHO, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MONTANA, RHODE ISLAND, UTAH, AND VERMONT, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AND AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Respondents. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ———— BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE AUSTRALIAN RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ———— ROBERT N. KAPLAN Counsel of Record KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 687-1980
[email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae December 14, 2017 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ..................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 2 I. THE ELIMINATION OF THE ANTI- STEERING RULES FOSTERED PRICE COMPETITION AND A DRAMATIC DROP IN AMEX’S MERCHANT FEES ... 2 A. The elimination of the anti-steering rules quickly resulted in lower mer- chant fees ............................................. 5 B. Studies confirm that the elimination of the anti-steering rules has improved competitive dynamics and the Aus- tralian economy overall ....................... 8 C. Industry participants, including Amex, recognized the pro-competitive bene- fits of the reforms ................................ 10 D. Woolworths provides a case study of competition in action ........................... 12 E. Lower merchant fees have led to hundreds of billions of dollars of sav- ings to merchants (and consumers) .... 14 II. OUTPUT, INNOVATION, CONSUM- ERS, AND EVEN AMEX HAVE BENEFITED IN AUSTRALIA ................. 15 A. Competition has increased output ...... 15 B. Competition has spurred innovation ... 15 (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page C.