MasterCard faces EU antitrust probe
European vacations are expensive enough without having to pay extra credit card fees when purchasing that Eiffel Tower souvenir.
April 09, 2013 at 08:28 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
European vacations are expensive enough without having to pay extra credit card fees when purchasing that Eiffel Tower souvenir. But those fees will be short-lived if regulators at the European Commission get their way.
The antitrust authority recently launched an investigation into MasterCard Inc.'s practice of charging non-EU card holders for using their credit and debit cards to make purchases within the 27-state region. The regulators are also scrutinizing the company's “honor all cards” policy, which requires merchants to accept premium cards, which come with higher fees.
“The interbank fees are generally passed on to the merchants, leading to higher overall fees for them,” the commission said in a statement Tuesday. “Ultimately, such behavior is liable to slow down cross-border business and harm E.U. consumers.”
In 2007, the commission ruled that the company could no longer charge cross-border fees within Europe, a decision that MasterCard has challenged. The company did agree to cap debit and credit card fees at .20 percent and .30 percent of purchases, respectively, while the appeal is pending.
MasterCard could face fines of up to $740 million if found guilty, Thomson Reuters reports. The commission plans to propose inter-bank card fee regulations, designed to “ensure legal certainty and a durable level playing field across the EU,” before this summer.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of credit card companies, see:
European vacations are expensive enough without having to pay extra credit card fees when purchasing that Eiffel Tower souvenir. But those fees will be short-lived if regulators at the European Commission get their way.
The antitrust authority recently launched an investigation into MasterCard Inc.'s practice of charging non-EU card holders for using their credit and debit cards to make purchases within the 27-state region. The regulators are also scrutinizing the company's “honor all cards” policy, which requires merchants to accept premium cards, which come with higher fees.
“The interbank fees are generally passed on to the merchants, leading to higher overall fees for them,” the commission said in a statement Tuesday. “Ultimately, such behavior is liable to slow down cross-border business and harm E.U. consumers.”
In 2007, the commission ruled that the company could no longer charge cross-border fees within Europe, a decision that MasterCard has challenged. The company did agree to cap debit and credit card fees at .20 percent and .30 percent of purchases, respectively, while the appeal is pending.
MasterCard could face fines of up to $740 million if found guilty, Thomson Reuters reports. The commission plans to propose inter-bank card fee regulations, designed to “ensure legal certainty and a durable level playing field across the EU,” before this summer.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of credit card companies, see:
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 AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
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