More than 1,000 retailers oppose $7.2 billion Visa/MasterCard credit card fee settlement
We already knew that Wal-Mart, Target and the National Retail Federation were less than pleased with a $7.2 billion credit card fee settlement between Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc., banks and a class of merchants
November 02, 2012 at 07:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
We already knew that Wal-Mart, Target and the National Retail Federation were less than pleased with a $7.2 billion credit card fee settlement between Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc., banks and a class of merchants. But it turns out they were far from the only disgruntled retailers.
On Thursday, almost 1,200 retailers pledged to urge a federal judge to reject the settlement, which, if approved, would be the largest antitrust settlement in history. But that's not why they're upset.
The settlement is meant to address 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. However, objectors claim that the settlement does not reform the system of swipe fees at all, and gives the companies room to raise fees again in the future.
“The declarations from about 1,200 merchants, small and large, from every corner of the country, and every type of merchant speak volumes about the fact that something is very seriously wrong with this deal,” Jeff Shinder, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Thomson Reuters.
Read InsideCounsel's ongoing coverage of the Visa/MasterCard 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
We already knew that
On Thursday, almost 1,200 retailers pledged to urge a federal judge to reject the settlement, which, if approved, would be the largest antitrust settlement in history. But that's not why they're upset.
The settlement is meant to address 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. However, objectors claim that the settlement does not reform the system of swipe fees at all, and gives the companies room to raise fees again in the future.
“The declarations from about 1,200 merchants, small and large, from every corner of the country, and every type of merchant speak volumes about the fact that something is very seriously wrong with this deal,” Jeff Shinder, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Thomson Reuters.
Read InsideCounsel's ongoing coverage of the Visa/MasterCard 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 AllApple 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 readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
- 2On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
- 3State Budget Proposal Includes More Money for Courts—for Now
- 4$5 Million Settlement Reached With Stone Academy
- 5$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
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