Credit Card Companies · Card Network · Private litigation
Visa
Headline
The merchant antitrust litigation began in 2005, grew to cover roughly 12 million merchants, and only reached a preliminarily approved settlement in June 2026 (final approval still pending) - more than twenty years.
The merchant antitrust litigation began in 2005, grew to cover roughly 12 million merchants, and only reached a preliminarily approved settlement in June 2026 (final approval still pending) - more than twenty years. Judge Brodie rejected an earlier $30 billion deal in 2024, finding the roughly $6 billion in annual merchant savings 'paltry' relative to the roughly $100 billion merchants paid in Visa and Mastercard interchange fees in 2023. Merchants Payments Coalition figures put Visa and Mastercard swipe fees (credit and debit combined) at a record $111.2 billion in 2024, up from about $100 billion the year before. The revised settlement cuts the combined average effective credit interchange rate by 10 basis points for five years, caps standard consumer cards at 1.25% for eight years, and finally lets merchants decline categories of cards rather than obeying the honor-all-cards rule. Those fees are built into shelf prices, so every consumer pays them, including the ones paying cash.
- Severity
- Evidence tierUnassigned
- Claims confirmed
- Last verified2026-08-04
Case status. Private litigation; the legal tier of its sources has not been assigned yet.
Primary source. www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2024/04/merchant-plaintiffs-reach-settlement — Verified - primary source confirmed.
Terms
Arbitration
MASSIVE, 21-YEAR ANTITRUST CASE (In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, filed 2005): merchants allege Visa/Mastercard/issuing banks conspired to FIX INTERCHANGE (swipe) FEES; a Nov 2025 proposed settlement (still pending final court approval as of mid-2026) would trim credit interchange rates by 10 basis points for 5 years, impose a capped 1.25% rate on standard consumer cards for 8 years, and give merchants new rights to surcharge and to accept different card categories (commercial/premium/standard) selectively — covering roughly 12 MILLION US MERCHANTS and aiming to end litigation dating to 2005. SEPARATELY, the DOJ filed its OWN civil antitrust suit against Visa specifically (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept 2024; Visa's motion to dismiss was denied in June 2025, and no settlement or judgment had been reported as of Oct 2026) alleging Visa illegally monopolized US DEBIT NETWORK markets in violation of the Sherman Act — a distinct, government-brought case running in parallel to the merchant-driven MDL. A separate $231.7 MILLION settlement (Oct 2025, B & R Supermarket v. Visa) resolved merchant claims over costs from counterfeit/lost/stolen card fraud, with Visa paying $119.7M and Mastercard paying $79.8M of that total (American Express and Discover paid the remaining $32.2M).
Data sharing
Not itemized separately from the antitrust findings below.
Fees and billing
The interchange-fee cost ultimately gets passed through to CONSUMERS via merchant pricing — while consumers aren't direct parties to most of this litigation, the settlement's surcharging changes and rate caps directly affect what merchants can charge card-paying customers going forward.
Contacts
Privacy contact. Not recorded.
Legal notice. PUBLIC COMPANY (V). Service route: c/o General Counsel / Corporate Secretary, San Francisco, California — 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
| Claim | Kind | Support | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The merchant antitrust litigation began in June 2005. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 2. The litigation grew to cover roughly 12 million merchants. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 3. The litigation reached an approved settlement in June 2026. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 4. Judge Brodie rejected an earlier settlement in 2024. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 5. The earlier rejected deal was worth $30 billion. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 6. Judge Brodie found roughly $6 billion in annual merchant savings 'paltry'. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 7. The revised settlement cuts the combined average effective credit interchange rate by 10 basis points for five years. | fact | contradicted | none recorded |
| 8. The revised settlement caps standard consumer cards at 1.25% for eight years. | fact | contradicted | none recorded |
| 9. The revised settlement lets merchants decline categories of cards rather than obey the honor-all-cards rule. | fact | contradicted | none recorded |
| 10. US swipe fees on Visa and Mastercard credit reached $111.2 billion in 2024. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 11. US swipe fees on Visa and Mastercard credit were $100.8 billion in 2023. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 12. 2024 swipe fees were roughly quadruple 2009 levels. | fact | unsupported | none recorded |
| 13. Swipe fees are built into shelf prices, so every consumer pays them, including cash payers. | characterization | n/a | none recorded |
0 of 13 claims have a confirmed source of their own.
Sources
| Source | Claim | Tier | Status | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| court · 2026-06-09 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9884.0.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | corrected | “In October 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust claims against the Networks and various issuing banks” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2026-06-09 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9884.0.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | confirmed | “Plaintiffs represent a class of over 12 million merchants who accept the Networks’ credit and debit cards” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2026-06-09 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9884.0.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | corrected | “Therefore, the Court grants preliminary approval.” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| none | whole row | Unassigned | not found | No quote recorded. Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2024-06-25 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9342.0_5.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | corrected | “which Plaintiffs estimate as being worth nearly $30 billion over five years” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2024-06-25 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9342.0_5.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | corrected | “the estimated $6 billion in annual savings to merchants is paltry compared to the $100 billion that merchants paid in interchange fees” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2026-06-09 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9884.0.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | confirmed | “Under the First Settlement, the rate reduction would have been seven basis points; under the Amended Settlement, that reduction would be ten basis points.” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2026-06-09 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9884.0.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | confirmed | “it would cap posted interchange rates on standard consumer credit cards at 125 basis points for at least eight years” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2026-06-09 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9884.0.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | confirmed | “the Amended Settlement would effectively repeal the Honor All Cards rule: merchants would be able to accept standard cards while rejecting higher-cost premium cards” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| none | whole row | Unassigned | not found | No quote recorded. Quote basis: not recorded. |
| court · 2024-06-25 www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477/gov.uscourts.nyed.249477.9342.0_5.pdf | whole row | Unassigned | corrected | “the $100 billion that merchants paid in interchange fees on Visa and Mastercard transactions in 2023” Quote basis: not recorded. |
| none | whole row | Unassigned | not found | No quote recorded. Quote basis: not recorded. |
| none | whole row | Unassigned | not found | No quote recorded. Quote basis: not recorded. |
Source vault
Link status: Candidate - not yet fetched
| Document | Last fetch | |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy policy usa.visa.com/legal/global-privacy-notice.html | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Terms of service usa.visa.com/legal/terms-of-service.html | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Website visa.com | Not fetched yet | — |
| Primary source https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2024/04/merchant-plaintiffs-reach-settlement Verification: Verified - primary source confirmed | Not fetched yet | — |
Enforcement
No enforcement actions are linked to this row.
State statute
Headquarters on file: California. Provisions of CCPA/CPRA on file:
| Provision | Type | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Deletion Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105 | hard | source |
| Right to Correction Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.106 | hard | source |
| Right to Know / Access Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.110 | hard | source |
| Right to Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.121; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7027 | hard | source |
| Right to Data Portability Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(3)(B)(iii) | hard | source |
| Privacy Policy / Privacy Notice Requirements Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7011 | hard | source |
| Sensitive Personal Information — Categories Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(ae) | hard | source |
| Service Provider and Contractor Contract Requirements Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(ag); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7051 | hard | source |
| Applicability Threshold (2025 CPI-Adjusted) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(d) | threshold | source |
| Privacy Risk Assessment — Mandatory for High-Risk Processing (Eff. Jan. 1, 2026) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185(a)(15); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, §§ 7150-7157 | hard | source |
| Right to Opt Out of Sale or Sharing Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.120, 1798.135 | hard | source |
| Sale vs. Sharing Distinction Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.140(ad), 1798.140(ah) | hard | source |
| Enforcement — CPPA and AG; Civil Penalties (2025 CPI-Adjusted) Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.155, 1798.199.90; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206 | hard | source |
| Notice at Collection Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7012 | hard | source |
| Cybersecurity Audit — Annual Independent Audit Requirement (Eff. Jan. 1, 2026) Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, §§ 7120-7124 | hard | source |
| Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) — Notice, Opt-Out, and Access Rights Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, §§ 7200-7222; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185(a)(16) | hard | source |