Merchants say card companies’ liable for more than $10 billion in damages
Who else wants a piece of the credit card companies? Weeks after news broke that automated teller machine owners are fed up with Visa and MasterCard allegedly artificially raising the prices consumers pay for ATM use, a federal judge heard oral arguments yesterday that the card companies are still choking...
November 03, 2011 at 09:30 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Who else wants a piece of the credit card companies? Weeks after news broke that automated teller machine (ATM) owners are fed up with Visa and MasterCard allegedly artificially raising the prices consumers pay for ATM use, a federal judge heard oral arguments yesterday that the card companies are still choking interchange networks and conspired to inflate fees retailers pay to process card payments.
Lawyers representing merchants, trade associations, credit card companies and their issuing banks pled their cases to Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over whether to proceed to trial with more antitrust allegations against the card issuers' and banks' interchange networks.
Another group of retailers, including Sears and Wal-Mart, reached a $3.05 billion settlement with Visa and MasterCard over similar claims about eight years ago. But since that settlement only covered the card companies' conduct prior to Jan. 1, 2004, a fresh group of plaintiffs now allege that the card issuers' practices and anti-competitive conduct is virtually unchanged since then.
The current group of plaintiffs, including Payless ShoeSource Inc. and the National Restaurant Association, say the card companies' liability could be much higher, with monetary damages estimated in the tens of billions.
MasterCard issued a detailed statement on the interchange lawsuit, In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, on its website, but asserts that the suits are without merit and are “a clear demonstration of certain merchants wanting the significant benefits of accepting payment cards without having to pay for the value of the services they receive.”
The card company adds that the lawsuits are being driven by class action lawyers looking to get rich off the fees.
Last month, a putative class of disgruntled ATM operators filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that Visa and MasterCard network rules prohibit ATM operators from offering lower prices for transactions over PIN-debit networks not affiliated with the card issuers. The lawsuit charges the companies with restraint of trade and seeks class action status.
For more, read Reuters' in-depth analysis.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250