Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	8. Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are subject to various pending and potential legal actions, arbitration proceedings, claims, investigations, examinations, information gathering requests, subpoenas, inquiries and matters relating to compliance with laws and regulations (collectively, legal proceedings). Based on our current knowledge, and taking into consideration our litigation-related liabilities, we do not believe we are a party to, nor are any of our properties the subject of, any legal proceeding that would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, including the fact that some pending legal proceedings are at preliminary stages or seek an indeterminate amount of damages, it is possible that the outcome of legal proceedings could have a material impact on our results of operations. Certain legal proceedings involving us or our subsidiaries are described below. Individual merchant cases and a putative merchant class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) in the Eastern District of New York, alleged that provisions in our merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging our cards or steering a customer to use another network’s card or another type of general-purpose card (“anti-steering” and “non-discrimination” contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust laws. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express Co. in favor of American Express, plaintiffs in both the individual merchant cases and the putative merchant class action filed amended complaints. On April 12, 2019, the individual merchant cases were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties. Our motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the class action is pending. In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in another putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important information from, the public relating to the financial importance of the Costco cobrand relationship to the Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief. On October 2, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The plaintiff has appealed the court’s decision. We are being challenged in a number of countries regarding our application of value-added taxes (VAT) to certain of our international transactions, which are in various stages of audit, or are being contested in legal actions. While we believe we have complied with all applicable tax laws, rules and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may determine that we owe additional VAT. In certain jurisdictions where we are contesting the assessments, we were required to pay the VAT assessments prior to contesting. Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to class actions with millions of putative class members. These legal proceedings involve various lines of business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, common law tort, contract, application of tax laws, antitrust and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. While some matters pending against us specify the damages claimed by the plaintiff or class, many seek an unspecified amount of damages or are at very early stages of the legal process. Even when the amount of damages claimed against us are stated, the claimed amount may be exaggerated and/or unsupported. As a result, some matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate an amount of loss or a range of possible loss, while other matters have progressed sufficiently such that we are able to estimate an amount of loss or a range of possible loss. We have accrued for certain of our outstanding legal proceedings. An accrual is recorded when it is both (a) probable that a loss has occurred and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. There may be instances in which an exposure to loss exceeds the accrual. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the accrual that has been previously recorded, or a revision to the disclosed estimated range of possible losses, as applicable. For those disclosed material legal proceedings where a loss is reasonably possible in future periods, whether in excess of a recorded accrual for legal or tax contingencies, or where there is no such accrual, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is zero to $240 million in excess of any accruals related to those matters. This range represents management’s estimate based on currently available information and does not represent our maximum loss exposure; actual results may vary significantly. As such legal proceedings evolve, we may need to increase our range of possible loss or recorded accruals. In addition, it is possible that significantly increased merchant steering or other actions impairing the Card Member experience as a result of an adverse resolution in one or any combination of the disclosed merchant cases could have a material adverse effect on our business.

8. Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are subject to various pending and potential legal actions, arbitration proceedings, claims, investigations, examinations, information gathering requests, subpoenas, inquiries and matters relating to compliance with laws and regulations (collectively, legal proceedings).

Based on our current knowledge, and taking into consideration our litigation-related liabilities, we do not believe we are a party to, nor are any of our properties the subject of, any legal proceeding that would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, including the fact that some pending legal proceedings are at preliminary stages or seek an indeterminate amount of damages, it is possible that the outcome of legal proceedings could have a material impact on our results of operations. Certain legal proceedings involving us or our subsidiaries are described below.

Individual merchant cases and a putative merchant class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) in the Eastern District of New York, alleged that provisions in our merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging our cards or steering a customer to use another network’s card or another type of general-purpose card (“anti-steering” and “non-discrimination” contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust laws. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express Co. in favor of American Express, plaintiffs in both the individual merchant cases and the putative merchant class action filed amended complaints. On April 12, 2019, the individual merchant cases were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties. Our motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the class action is pending.

In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in another putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important information from, the public relating to the financial importance of the Costco cobrand relationship to the Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief. On October 2, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The plaintiff has appealed the court’s decision.

We are being challenged in a number of countries regarding our application of value-added taxes (VAT) to certain of our international transactions, which are in various stages of audit, or are being contested in legal actions. While we believe we have complied with all applicable tax laws, rules and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may determine that we owe additional VAT. In certain jurisdictions where we are contesting the assessments, we were required to pay the VAT assessments prior to contesting.

Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to class actions with millions of putative class members. These legal proceedings involve various lines of business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, common law tort, contract, application of tax laws, antitrust and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. While some matters pending against us specify the damages claimed by the plaintiff or class, many seek an unspecified amount of damages or are at very early stages of the legal process. Even when the amount of damages claimed against us are stated, the claimed amount may be exaggerated and/or unsupported. As a result, some matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate an amount of loss or a range of possible loss, while other matters have progressed sufficiently such that we are able to estimate an amount of loss or a range of possible loss.

We have accrued for certain of our outstanding legal proceedings. An accrual is recorded when it is both (a) probable that a loss has occurred and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. There may be instances in which an exposure to loss exceeds the accrual. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the accrual that has been previously recorded, or a revision to the disclosed estimated range of possible losses, as applicable.

For those disclosed material legal proceedings where a loss is reasonably possible in future periods, whether in excess of a recorded accrual for legal or tax contingencies, or where there is no such accrual, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is zero to $240 million in excess of any accruals related to those matters. This range represents management’s estimate based on currently available information and does not represent our maximum loss exposure; actual results may vary significantly. As such legal proceedings evolve, we may need to increase our range of possible loss or recorded accruals. In addition, it is possible that significantly increased merchant steering or other actions impairing the Card Member experience as a result of an adverse resolution in one or any combination of the disclosed merchant cases could have a material adverse effect on our business.