法律翻译｜俄亥俄州诉美国运通公司案

译者 | 倪芷若 中国政法大学

一审 | 佩佩 布里斯托大学

二审 | 陈飞越 爱丁堡大学LL.M.

编辑 | NYZ 武汉大学本科

         于杰 上海对外经贸大学本科

责编 | 王有蓉 中国政法大学

Ohio v. American Express Co.

United States Supreme Court

138 S. Ct. 2274 

俄亥俄州诉美国运通公司案

美国运通公司（American Express Company）与美国运通旅行相关服务公司（American Express Travel Related Services Company）（以下简称运通公司）是向商家和消费者提供信用卡服务的公司。运通公司向商家收取比其他信用卡公司更高的费用，与此同时，却也向使用其信用卡进行消费的持卡人提供更多奖励。为了阻止商家减少使用其信用卡服务，运通公司与商家签订了包含反导向条款（Anti-steering Clause）的协议，禁止商家在销售点引导顾客使用其他信用卡公司的服务。随后，美国几个州的政府（原告）向法院提起诉讼，声称运通公司的反导向条款违反了反垄断法。一审法院认为，信用卡交易应当在反垄断目的上被区分为两个独立的市场：一是向商家提供支付服务的市场，二是向顾客提供借贷额度的市场。在对商家的竞争损害进行分析时，一审法院认定运通公司的反导向条款具有反竞争效果，因为该条款导致商家产生更高的手续费用，商家提价从而损害消费者福利。但第二巡回上诉法院推翻了这一判决，将本案的相关市场界定为单一的信用卡服务市场。联邦最高法院接受了此案的复审。

1）如何界定本案的相关市场？是单一的市场还是消费者与商家的双边市场？

2）原告是否已承担其初步的举证责任？原告提供的直接损害证据是否可以证明被告运通公司的反导向条款具有反竞争效果？

（图片源于网络）

In this case, both sides correctly acknowledge that Amex’s antisteering provisions are vertical restraints— i.e., restraints “imposed by agreement between firms at different levels of distribution.” The parties also correctly acknowledge that, like nearly every other vertical restraint, the antisteering provisions should be assessed under the rule of reason.

本案中，原被告均认可运通公司的反导向条款构成纵向协议限制，该限制通过不同分销层级的公司之间签订协议形成。并且原被告正确地意识到，反导向条款与几乎所有其他纵向协议限制一样，应当根据合理原则进行反垄断分析。

Here, the plaintiffs rely exclusively on direct evidence to prove that Amex’s antisteering provisions have caused anticompetitive effects in the credit-card market. To assess this evidence, we must first define the relevant market. Once defined, it becomes clear that the plaintiffs’  evidence is insufficient to carry their burden.

在本案中，原告仅提供直接证据来证明运通公司的反导向条款在信用卡市场中产生了反竞争效果。为了评估这些证据，我们首先必须定义相关市场。一旦界定了相关市场，就会明显发现原告的证据并不足以承担他们的举证责任。

But two-sided transaction platforms, like the credit-card market, are different. These platforms facilitate a single, simultaneous transaction between participants. For credit cards, the network can sell its services only if a merchant and cardholder both simultaneously choose to use the network. Thus, whenever a credit-card network sells one transaction’s worth of card-acceptance services to a merchant it also must sell one transaction’s worth of card payment services to a cardholder. It cannot sell transaction services to either cardholders or merchants individually.

然而，像信用卡服务市场这样的双边交易平台是不同的。这些平台促进了在平台参与者间单一且同步的交易。对于信用卡公司而言，只有在商家与持卡人同时选择使用该卡时，卡商才能销售其服务。因此，只要信用卡公司向商家出售一笔特定交易价值的卡片受理服务，它也必须向持卡人出售一笔具有同等交易价值的卡片支付服务，而不能分别向持卡人或商家出售单独的信用服务。

Because they cannot make a sale unless both sides of the platform simultaneously agree to use their services, two-sided transaction platforms exhibit more pronounced indirect network effects and interconnected pricing and demand. Transaction platforms are thus better understood as “suppl[ying] only one product”—transactions.

由于只有在平台两边的商家与消费者同时同意使用其服务时，平台的交易才能进行，因此双边交易平台表现出更为明显的间接网络效应和相互关联的定价与需求。信用卡交易平台也正因此更适合被理解成“只提供一个产品”的交易。

As an initial matter, the plaintiffs’ argument about merchant fees wrongly focuses on only one side of the twosided credit-card market. As explained, the credit-card market must be defined to include both merchants and cardholders. Focusing on merchant fees alone misses the mark because the product that credit-card companies sell is transactions, not services to merchants, and the competitive effects of a restraint on transactions cannot be judged by looking at merchants alone.

作为首要问题，原告关于商家支付费用的论点错误地仅仅关注了信用卡双边服务市场的其中一边。如前所述，界定信用卡服务市场必须同时考虑商家与持卡人。仅仅关注商家支付费用是错误的，因为信用卡公司销售的产品是同步的交易过程，而非单独向商家提供的服务，并且交易限制所带来的的竞争影响不能仅通过考虑商家来判断。

2）原告没有承担起证明被告在相关市场中存在反竞争效果的初步举证责任。原告以运通公司的反导向条款增加了商家费用作为论据。多数意见认为该论点不具备说服力。

The plaintiffs did not offer any evidence that the price of credit-card transactions was higher than the price one would expect to find in a competitive market. As the District Court found, the plaintiffs failed to offer any reliable measure of Amex’s transaction price or profit margins. And the evidence about whether Amex charges more than its competitors was ultimately inconclusive.

原告没有提供任何证据证明信用卡交易价格高于在一个具有竞争力市场中的预期价格。正如地方法院所认定的，原告未能提供任何可靠的信用卡交易价格或利润率的衡量标准。而关于运通公司是否比竞争对手收取更高费用的问题，原告提供的证据并不能使人信服。

In sum, the plaintiffs have not satisfied the first step of the rule of reason. They have not carried their burden of proving that Amex’s antisteering provisions have anticompetitive effects. Amex’s business model has spurred robust interbrand competition and has increased the quality and quantity of credit-card transactions. And it is “[t]he promotion of interbrand competition,” after all, that “is . . . ‘the primary purpose of the antitrust laws.’”

总而言之，原告没有满足合理原则分析框架下的第一步。他们未能证明运通公司的反导向条款具有反竞争效果。运通公司的商业模式促进了品牌间竞争，并提升了信用卡交易质量与交易数量。毕竟，“促进品牌间竞争”才是“反垄断法的主要目的”。

（图片源于网络）

One critical point that the majority’s argument ignores is that proof of actual adverse effects on competition is, a fortiori, proof of market power. Without such power, the restraints could not have brought about the anticompetitive effects that the plaintiff proved. (“[T]he purpose of the inquiries into market definition and market power is to determine whether an arrangement has the potential for genuine adverse effects on competition” (emphasis added)). The District Court’s findings of actual anticompetitive harm from the nondiscrimination provisions thus showed that, whatever the relevant market might be, American Express had enough power in that market to cause that harm. There is no reason to require a separate showing of market definition and market power under such circumstances. And so the majority’s extensive discussion of market definition is legally unnecessary.

多数意见所没有意识到的一个关键点在于，如果能证明行为具有实际反竞争效果，便是市场力量存在的一种论证。如果缺少市场力量，竞争限制行为就无法产生原告所证明的反竞争效果。因此，当地方法院发现非歧视条款造成了实际竞争损害时，足以说明，无论相关市场是什么，运通公司具有足够的造成这种损害的市场力量。在这种情况下，没有理由要求对市场定义和市场力量进行单独的证明。因此，多数意见对市场定义的广泛讨论在法律上是不必要的。

The majority charts a different path. Notwithstanding its purported acceptance of the three-step, burden-shifting framework I have described, the majority addresses American Express’ procompetitive justifications now, at step 1 of the analysis. And in doing so, the majority inexplicably ignores the District Court’s factual findings on the subject.

多数意见采取了不同的路径。尽管其声称认可了我之前描述的三步举证责任转移框架，但是在分析的第一步中，多数意见就已经推断出运通公司的促进竞争效果。而在作出该等推断的过程中，多数意见莫名其妙地忽视了地方法院对此问题的实际调查结果。