In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are subject to various pending and potential legal actions, arbitration proceedings, claims, investigations, examinations, regulatory proceedings, 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.

A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), 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. On January 15, 2020, our motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted. Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision.

On February 25, 2020, we were named as a defendant in a case filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, captioned Laurelwood Cleaners LLC v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiff seeks a public injunction prohibiting American Express from enforcing its anti-steering and non-discrimination provisions and from requiring merchants “to offer the service of Amex-card acceptance for free.” We intend to vigorously defend the case.

On January 29, 2019, we were named in a putative class action brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc., in which the plaintiffs are holders of MasterCard, Visa and/or Discover credit cards (but not American Express cards) and allege they paid higher prices as a result of our anti-steering and non-discrimination provisions in violation of federal antitrust law and the antitrust and consumer laws of various states. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claim, numerous state antitrust and consumer protection claims and their unjust enrichment claim. The remaining claims in plaintiffs’ complaint arise under the antitrust laws of 11 states and the consumer protection laws of six states.

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 August 28, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

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 to governmental proceedings. 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 sought, 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 $210 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 and results of operations.

•Merchant Protection — protects Card Members primarily against non-delivery of goods and services, usually in the event of the bankruptcy or liquidation of a merchant. When this occurs, the Card Member may dispute the transaction for which we will generally credit the Card Member’s account. If we are unable to collect the amount from the merchant, we may bear the loss for the amount credited to the Card Member. The largest component of the exposure relates to Card Member transactions associated with travel-related merchants, primarily through business arrangements where we have remitted payment to such merchants for a Card Member travel purchase that has not yet been used or “flown.”

We have an accrual of $58 million related to these exposures as of December 31, 2020. To date, we have not experienced significant losses related to these exposures; however, our historical experience may not be representative in the current environment given the economic and financial disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting containment measures. A reasonably possible loss related to these exposures in excess of the recorded accrual cannot be quantified as the Card Member purchases that may include or result in claims are not sufficiently estimable, although we believe our risk of loss has increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Total lease expense includes rent expenses, adjustments for rent concessions, rent escalations and leasehold improvement allowances and is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Total lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 was $177 million, $151 million and $142 million, respectively.

Lease liabilities are recognized at the present value of the contractual fixed lease payments, discounted using our incremental borrowing rate as of the lease commencement date or upon modification of the lease. For lease liabilities outstanding as of December 31, 2020, the weighted average remaining lease term was 19 years and the weighted average rate used to discount lease commitments was 3 percent.