Extract to table

The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Thomas, that for "two-sided transaction platforms," the relevant market must encompass both sides of the platform

Under the Amex framework, Cascade should argue that the FTC must demonstrate competitive harm that is not offset by benefits to consumers on the buyer side of the platform

This precedent underscores that Cascade should not rely solely on its efficiencies defense at the PI hearing but must present a strong challenge to the FTC's market definition and competitive effects evidence

Cascade must distinguish Staples II on several grounds

First, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that antitrust plaintiffs must define markets carefully and demonstrate actual anticompetitive harm to competition, not merely harm to individual market participants

The FTC's theory in the Cascade-Pinnacle case — that the merger will harm third-party sellers through higher take rates and reduced services — must be scrutinized under this standard