American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
E390991
American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers, even when the cost of individual arbitration exceeds potential recovery.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3822023 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant Context triple: [October Term 2012, includesCase, American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant]
-
A.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
B.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
C.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
D.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
E.
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public employees’ lawsuits and grievances are protected by the Petition Clause only when they address matters of public concern.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant Target entity description: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers, even when the cost of individual arbitration exceeds potential recovery.
-
A.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
B.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
C.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
D.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
E.
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public employees’ lawsuits and grievances are protected by the Petition Clause only when they address matters of public concern.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Federal Arbitration Act case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ arbitration law case ⓘ |
| allegation |
American Express used its monopoly power in the charge-card market to impose anticompetitive tying arrangements on merchants.
ⓘ
linked to:
United States antitrust law
|
| areaOfLaw |
antitrust law
ⓘ
arbitration law ⓘ civil procedure ⓘ |
| citation | 570 U.S. 228 ⓘ |
| contractProvisionAtIssue | arbitration clause with class-action waiver in American Express merchant agreement ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-20 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Justice Elena Kagan
ⓘ
linked to:
Elena Kagan
|
| docketNumber | 11-1491 ⓘ |
| holding |
Arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act even if the cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery.
ⓘ
The effective vindication doctrine does not guarantee an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim. ⓘ |
| impact |
limited use of the effective vindication doctrine to invalidate arbitration agreements
ⓘ
strengthened enforceability of arbitration clauses with class-action waivers in federal statutory claims ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
ⓘ
linked to:
John G. Roberts Jr.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ
linked to:
Clarence Thomas
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
|
| joinedDissent |
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
ⓘ
linked to:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (except she took no part in the consideration or decision) ⓘ Justice Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
linked to:
Stephen G. Breyer
|
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| keyword |
antitrust arbitration
ⓘ
arbitration agreement ⓘ class-action waiver ⓘ effective vindication doctrine ⓘ |
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
application of the Federal Arbitration Act
ⓘ
effective vindication doctrine ⓘ enforceability of arbitration agreements with class-action waivers ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
linked to:
Antonin Scalia
|
| petitioner |
American Express Company
ⓘ
linked to:
American Express
|
| priorHistory | Second Circuit held the class-action waiver unenforceable as it would preclude effective vindication of federal antitrust claims. ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
ⓘ
Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph ⓘ Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. ⓘ |
| respondent |
Italian Colors Restaurant
ⓘ
other merchants accepting American Express cards ⓘ |
| result | Reversed and remanded ⓘ |
| reversed | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Federal Arbitration Act ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | merchant antitrust claims against American Express ⓘ |
| termOfCourt | October Term 2012 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2013 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant Description of subject: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers, even when the cost of individual arbitration exceeds potential recovery.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.