Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

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, 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.

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 in California 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.” The case has been stayed pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings.

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.

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.

In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in a 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.

In 2006, Mawarid Investments Limited filed a request for confidential arbitration under the 1998 London Court of International Arbitration Rules in connection with certain claims arising under a shareholders agreement between Mawarid and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. relating to a joint venture between the parties, Amex (Middle East) BSC(c) (AEME). In 2008, the tribunal rendered a partial award, including a direction that an audit should take place to verify whether acquirer discount revenue related to transactions occurring with airlines located in the Middle East region had been properly allocated to AEME since its inception in 1992. In September 2021, the tribunal rendered a further partial award regarding the location of transactions through non-physical channels. In May 2022, the tribunal further clarified the 2021 partial award and the discount rate that should apply to transactions through non-physical channels.

In May 2020, we began responding to a review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division regarding historical sales practices relating to sales to small business customers in the United States. In January 2021, we received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) regarding these sales practices issues, as well as a Civil Investigative Demand from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pertaining to its investigation into sales practices related to consumers. We have also been made aware of a related investigation by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

In January 2023, the CFPB notified us that its investigation was completed and that it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action be taken against us at this time. In July 2023, we reached a settlement with the OCC to resolve its review of historical sales practices to certain U.S. small business card customers that occurred between 2015 and 2017, and paid a civil money penalty of $15 million. The DOJ, EDNY and NYDFS investigations are ongoing, and we are cooperating with all inquiries. Any additional negotiated resolution or litigated proceedings arising from these matters could result in fines or other remedial actions.

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 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 $310 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.