First, in defining the relevant antitrust market for a two-sided platform with indirect network effects, can courts simply elect not to analyze both sides of the market, notwithstanding this Court's command that they "must" do so? See Amex, 138 S. Ct. at 2286.

Second, where Illinois Brick established the "indirect purchaser" rule such that the first party outside the conspiracy has standing to sue, can a competitor establish standing based on harm to alleged members of the conspiracy?

Whether courts must analyze both sides of a two-sided platform with indirect network effects in defining the relevant antitrust market, as required by Ohio v. American Express Co.