Credit Card Companies · Card Network · Structural / no discrete incident
Mastercard
Headline
Co-defendant with Visa in the same twenty-one-year merchant antitrust case, subject to the same revised settlement, which received preliminary (not final) approval in June 2026.
Not independently verified. Verification status: Unverified - heuristic first draft. Publish state: draft unverified.
Co-defendant with Visa in the same twenty-one-year merchant antitrust case, subject to the same revised settlement, which received preliminary (not final) approval in June 2026. The provision worth understanding as a consumer is the surcharge right: merchants now have materially expanded ability to add a surcharge for higher-cost cards or discount lower-cost payment methods, which means the cost of your rewards card is about to become visible at the register rather than buried in everyone's prices. Premium rewards cards carry the highest interchange - Amex raised its Platinum annual fee to $895 and Chase raised Sapphire Reserve to $795 in 2025 - and those rewards were always funded by fees merchants recovered from all customers, including people carrying no card at all.
- Severity
- Evidence tierUnassigned
- Claims confirmed
- Last verified2026-08-04
Primary source. None recorded — Unverified - heuristic first draft.
Terms
Arbitration
SAME MDL 1720 interchange-fee litigation as Visa (see Visa row) — Mastercard is a co-defendant throughout, including the revised ~$38B Nov 2025 settlement, which won preliminary court approval in June 2026 with final approval still pending (final-approval hearing scheduled for November 2026; NRF, NACS and Walmart among objectors), and the separate EMV liability-shift class action (B & R Supermarket v. Visa), which Mastercard settled for an accrued $80 million, with final court approval in April 2026. SEPARATE April 2026 case (a new putative class action disclosed in Mastercard's Q2 2026 10-Q; reported as Potayto-Potahto, LLC v. Visa/Mastercard, but caption and court not independently confirmed; current status not verified as of Oct 2026): a new putative class action seeking interchange damages since January 2019, asserting the same underlying federal antitrust theory as MDL 1720, filed AGAINST BOTH networks jointly — indicating merchants continue filing fresh interchange-related claims even as the original 2005 case nears a possible resolution.
Data sharing
Not itemized separately from the antitrust findings below.
Fees and billing
Same consumer pass-through dynamic as Visa — interchange fees affect the prices merchants charge all customers, cardholders and non-cardholders alike.
Contacts
Privacy contact. Not recorded.
Legal notice. PUBLIC COMPANY (MA). Service route: c/o General Counsel / Corporate Secretary, Purchase, New York — the corporate address on the SEC Form 10-K cover page is the official address of record. Confirm the exact street address on the current 10-K at sec.gov/edgar, and check the state-of-incorporation registered agent (usually Delaware; most large filers use The Corporation Trust Company or Corporation Service Company) via the Secretary of State business-entity search. A registered agent MUST accept service, which is why it is the reliable channel when a company publishes no privacy address.
Mailing address. Not recorded.
Evidence
No claims have been itemized for this row yet.
No sources are on file for this row yet.
Source vault
Link status: Candidate - not yet fetched
| Document | Last fetch | |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy policy mastercard.us/en-us/vision/corp-responsibility/privacy.html | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Terms of service mastercard.us/en-us/vision/corp-responsibility/terms-of-use.html | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Website mastercard.com | Not fetched yet | — |
| Primary source No URL recorded Verification: Unverified - heuristic first draft | Not fetched yet | — |
Enforcement
No enforcement actions are linked to this row.
State statute
No comprehensive state privacy statute on file for New York