Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D.N.Y.: American Express $17.5M settlement approved, vacating earlier jury verdict, (Jul 9, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Settlement followed a mixed verdict in which American Express prevailed on the antitrust claims, but the Illinois non-rewards credit-card class was awarded about $12.5 million on a consumer protection claim.

A $17.5 million class action settlement resolving consumer antitrust and consumer protection claims against American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. received final approval from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The federal court in Brooklyn found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, approved the proposed plan of distribution, overruled two purported objections, and dismissed the released claims with prejudice. In a separate fee order, the court awarded class counsel $5,832,750.00 in attorney fees, representing 33.33% of the settlement fund, and $2,033,444.44 in litigation expenses, along with service awards to the class representatives. The judgment also set aside and vacated the August 28, 2025, jury verdict, providing that the verdict would have no force or effect for any purpose, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, or any other preclusive purpose. The vacatur followed a mixed trial result in which the jury found for American Express on all certified classes’ antitrust claims but awarded the Illinois non-rewards credit-card class approximately $12.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages on an Illinois consumer protection claim (Moskowitz v. American Express Co., No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2026)).

Background. The case began in January 2019, when non-American Express credit- and debit-card holders filed a proposed class action alleging that American Express’s anti-steering rules in merchant acceptance agreements caused consumers to pay inflated retail prices. The plaintiffs asserted federal and state antitrust claims, state consumer protection claims, and unjust enrichment claims. After motion practice under Rules 12(b) and 12(c), the court dismissed the federal injunctive claims, unjust enrichment claims, several state antitrust claims, and several state consumer protection claims, but allowed other state-law claims to proceed.

Following class certification and Daubert briefing, the court certified debit-card classes for Alabama, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah, and later certified non-rewards credit-card classes for the District of Columbia, Kansas, and Illinois. The court denied certification as to certain other proposed debit-card and credit-card classes. The Second Circuit later denied American Express’s Rule 23(f) petitions seeking immediate review of the class-certification orders.

In January 2025, the court approved notice to the certified classes, appointed A.B. Data, Ltd. as notice administrator, and appointed class counsel. After an initial mistrial during jury selection in July 2025, the jury returned a mixed verdict: it found for American Express on all claims brought by all certified classes except the Illinois non-rewards credit-card class’s claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. On that claim, the jury awarded $6,006,339.55 in compensatory damages and $6.5 million in punitive damages.

After trial, the parties anticipated substantial post-trial motion practice, including American Express’s expected Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions. Settlement efforts had begun before trial through mediation but resumed after the verdict, with continued mediator-assisted negotiations in September and October 2025. On October 23, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action, including a $17.5 million cash settlement and a condition that the jury verdict be set aside.

Order approving settlement. The court granted final approval to the settlement between the certified plaintiff classes and American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. The court found that the previously certified classes continued to satisfy Rule 23, that the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the class members, and that the notice program satisfied Rule 23, due process, and CAFA. The court also found that two purported objections were invalid because the objectors lacked standing and/or failed to comply with the objection requirements, and in any event lacked merit.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the class. It found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel, that class counsel and the plaintiffs adequately represented the class, that the relief provided was adequate, and that the distribution plan treated class members equitably. The plan of distribution was approved as fair and equitable because it directs settlement funds to the Illinois non-rewards credit-card class, the only class awarded damages at trial.

The court dismissed the released claims against American Express with prejudice, approved the settlement fund as a qualified settlement fund, confirmed A.B. Data, Ltd. as claims administrator, and retained jurisdiction to oversee implementation and enforcement of the settlement. The order also noted that a separate final judgment would be entered addressing the effect of the settlement on the earlier jury verdict.

Final judgment. The final judgment approved the class action settlement between the parties. The court found that it had jurisdiction over the action, the parties, the class members, and the settlement, and that the CAFA notice requirements had been satisfied. It also found that the settlement notice program was the best notice practicable, satisfied Rule 23 and due process, and adequately advised class members of the settlement, the releases, the fee request, their right to object, and their right to appear at the settlement hearing.

The judgment fully and finally approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 and dismissed all claims asserted against American Express with prejudice. It made the settlement binding on the defendants, plaintiffs, class members, and related released parties, and incorporated the settlement’s releases. The court also retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, interpretation, implementation, enforcement, and disposition of the settlement fund; fee and expense awards; service awards; and related class-member matters.

The most significant feature of the judgment is that it set aside and vacated the August 28, 2025 jury verdict. The judgment provides that the verdict has no force or effect for any purpose, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, or any other preclusive purpose. The judgment separately provides that the settlement and related documents are not admissions of liability, wrongdoing, weakness of defenses, or the value of the claims, and directs immediate entry of final judgment.

Attorney fees and expenses. The court granted class counsel’s motion for attorney fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards in connection with the approved American Express class settlement. The court awarded class counsel $5,832,750.00 in attorneys’ fees, representing 33.33% of the $17.5 million settlement fund, and reimbursed $2,033,444.44 in litigation expenses.

In finding the award fair and reasonable, the court relied on both the percentage-of-the-fund method and a lodestar cross-check, noting the quality of class counsel’s representation, the contingent nature of the case, the substantial time and effort involved, the jury verdict, and the risks of further appeal. The court also noted that class counsel devoted more than 63,778 hours to the litigation, with a lodestar value of $45,649,391.15.

In addition, the court approved service awards of $10,000 each to the three class representatives who did not testify at trial and $15,000 each to the nine class representatives who appeared and testified at trial. The order further provides that any appeal or challenge to the fee and expense award will not affect the finality of the settlement judgment, and that the fee order will be vacated if the settlement is terminated or does not become final.

The Case is No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-JRC.

Judge: Garaufis, N.

Attorneys: Daniel Cohen (Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP) for David Moskowitz. Peter T. Barbur (Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP) for American Express Co. and American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc.

Companies: American Express Co.; American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc.

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews