Visa, Mastercard Agree to Pay $6.2B to Settle Antitrust Class Action
Visa, Mastercard and a number of U.S. banks have reached an agreement to pay $6.2 billion to settle a long-running class action suit brought by millions of merchants over card swipe fees.
September 18, 2018 at 02:29 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Visa, Mastercard and a number of U.S. banks have reached an agreement to pay $6.2 billion to settle a long-running class action suit brought by millions of merchants over card swipe fees.
The settlement was reached Monday among the parties in antitrust litigation that has run for 13 years, according to reports that Visa and Mastercard filed on Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The settlement agreement is still subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie of the Eastern District of New York.
Visa's share of the settlement payout is estimated to be about $4.1 billion, while Mastercard appears set to add $900 million, according to news releases from the companies.
“After years of thoughtful negotiation, we are pleased to be able to reach this agreement and move forward in our partnership with merchants to provide consumers convenient, reliable, secure ways to pay,” said Kelly Mahon Tullier, Visa's general counsel and executive vice president, in a news release.
“We are taking a significant step toward closing a chapter in a long-standing case,” said Mastercard general counsel Tim Murphy in a news release. “We can put this behind us and focus on continuing to innovate with our merchant partners to deliver the experience and convenience that consumers expect.”
Visa was represented by Robert Vizas in Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer's San Francisco office; Mark Merley and Matthew Eisenstein from the firm's Washington, D.C., office; and Robert Mason from the firm's New York office.
Visa's legal team also included Holwell Shuster & Goldberg attorneys Michael Shuster, Demian Ordway and Blair Kaminsky.
Mastercard was represented by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison attorneys Kenneth Gallo, Zachary Dietert and Gary Carney.
The antitrust case began in 2005, when about 12 million merchants filed Sherman Act claims in the Eastern District against Visa, Mastercard and their issuing banks, arguing that rules set by card issuers' networks that impose artificially inflated fees violated the act.
The merchants claimed the credit card companies were being anti-competitive by imposing the “default interchange fee” that applies to every transaction in the network; the “honor-all-cards” rule that requires all stores to accept all Visa and Mastercards if they accept any of them; and “anti-steering” rules prohibiting merchants from charging different prices depending on the means of payment.
In 2012, the parties reached a $7.25 billion settlement in the case, which now-retired U.S. District Judge John Gleeson approved in 2013.
But in 2016 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit threw out the settlement, citing concerns that class counsel—which stood to rake in $544.8 million in fees—was representing two groups of plaintiffs that had competing interests.
The class counsel, led by Craig Wildfang of Robins Kaplan in Minneapolis with lawyers from Berger & Montague in Philadelphia and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, represented both a group of merchants who accepted cards before the settlement date and a group of merchants who would accept cards after the settlement date; the former group was set to receive the settlement money, while the latter would have received injunctive relief but none of the settlement.
In a written statement, Wildfang said that the settlement was the product of more than a year of work with two mediators. The settlement award could be reduced by up to $700,000 if opt-outs from the settlement reach a certain threshold, according to the statement.
Patrick Coughlin of Robbins Geller said in the statement that the parties agree that they have addressed the issues that the Second Circuit raised in its 2016 ruling.
Plaintiffs in the case had also been represented by New York attorney Gary Friedman, who also worked on massive antitrust litigation involving American Express.
During a criminal investigation into former Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Keila Ravelo, who worked on the defense team for Mastercard, investigators found that Friedman and Ravelo were in communication regarding the cases, which led to another Eastern District judge to throw out a settlement reached between American Express and a group of merchants.
Read More:
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 AllLitigators of the Week: The Eighth Circuit Knocks Out a $564M Verdict Against BMO in Ponzi Case
Litigators of the Week: Second Circuit Tells Argentina to Turn Over More Than $300M to Bondholders
How One of the World's Largest Institutional Investors Approaches Litigation
Big Law and Litigation Finance Seem to Be Having a Moment
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