{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03170028818443804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011527377521613832, 'mean_word_length': 4.47244094488189, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The American Express Case: Public Good or Monopoly?

ON February 20, 1974 a civil complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed by Consumers Union and one Linda Blitz against the American Express Company and the U.S. Shoe Retail Corporation under section 1 of the Sherman Act.1 American Express and U.S. Shoe Retail were charged with being in restraint of trade. Specifically the companies were charged with being parties to a "restrictive contract," which "eliminates price competition in the sale of goods and services to cash customers and credit card customers . .. . ," and with imposing a tie-in sale. The provision of the contract to which objection was made read as follows: