$7.2 billion Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement gets preliminary approval
Despite heavy opposition from powerhouse retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target, the $7.2 billion settlement between Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and several banks on one side, and a class of merchants on the other, has received preliminary approval.
November 12, 2012 at 06:16 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Despite heavy opposition from powerhouse retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target, the $7.2 billion settlement between Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and several banks on one side, and a class of merchants on the other, has received preliminary approval.
U.S. District Judge John Gleeson granted the deal preliminary approval on Friday, leaving it only the hurdle of final approval to leap over before becoming the largest antitrust settlement in U.S. history. Before that, though, Gleeson will schedule a hearing to allow the objectors to the settlement a chance to be heard.
The deal addresses claims that the credit card companies and banks fixed swipe fees, which cost retailers every time a consumer purchases something with a debit or credit card. Those opposed to the settlement say that it allows Visa and MasterCard to raise the fees in the future.
In light of preliminary approval, however, Visa and MasterCard agreed to amend their policies within 60 days to allow merchants to charge customers extra for using credit or debit cards. Out of the $7.2 billion, $1.2 billion of the settlement consists of a reduction in swipe fees, which will take place whether or not Gleeson grants the deal final approval, after class members have been given time to opt out of receiving monetary damages.
Read more at the Chicago Tribune.
Follow the saga of the settlement on InsideCounsel:
More than 1,000 retailers oppose $7.2 billion Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement
Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement on expedited schedule for approval
Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement with retailers moves forward
Wal-Mart disapproves of $7.25 billion credit card fee settlement
Merchants say card companies' liable for more than $10 billion in damages
Despite heavy opposition from powerhouse retailers like
U.S. District Judge
The deal addresses claims that the credit card companies and banks fixed swipe fees, which cost retailers every time a consumer purchases something with a debit or credit card. Those opposed to the settlement say that it allows Visa and MasterCard to raise the fees in the future.
In light of preliminary approval, however, Visa and MasterCard agreed to amend their policies within 60 days to allow merchants to charge customers extra for using credit or debit cards. Out of the $7.2 billion, $1.2 billion of the settlement consists of a reduction in swipe fees, which will take place whether or not Gleeson grants the deal final approval, after class members have been given time to opt out of receiving monetary damages.
Read more at the Chicago Tribune.
Follow the saga of the settlement on InsideCounsel:
More than 1,000 retailers oppose $7.2 billion Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement
Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement on expedited schedule for approval
Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement with retailers moves forward
Merchants say card companies' liable for more than $10 billion in damages
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
© 2025 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 All
Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 111th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 2Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 3'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 4Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
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
