Payment Network Class Actions Merchants Should Be Watching

For most merchants, payment processing is just part of doing business—until the costs start adding up.

What many don’t realize is that they may be entitled to recover a portion of the fees they’ve already paid.

Every transaction carries layers of expense—interchange fees, network fees, processor markups, and compliance costs—that quietly erode margins over time. These costs are often accepted as fixed.

They’re not.

Many of these practices have been challenged in court, creating real opportunities for recovery.

And importantly, many of the most meaningful changes in payment economics don’t come from innovation—they come from litigation.

With a $1.2 billion Discover Card settlement and a May 2026 filing deadline, the question isn’t whether these costs exist—it’s whether your business will recover them.

Cases involving Visa, Mastercard, American Express, processors, and emerging payment platforms are shaping:

• how fees are structured

• how transactions are routed

• who ultimately bears fraud and compliance risk

This impact isn’t theoretical. These cases determine whether merchants can recover a share of the fees they’ve already paid.

The long-running Visa/Mastercard interchange litigation is one example—but far from the only opportunity.

The reality is simple: most businesses underestimate their eligibility and leave money unclaimed.

That’s where MCAG comes in.

We help organizations identify, prepare, and file complex settlement claims—ensuring they recover funds they may not even realize they’re entitled to.

If your organization accepts card payments, there’s a strong likelihood you qualify for one or more of these settlements.

The only question is whether you act in time.

Don’t assume you’re not eligible.

Don’t assume the process is simple.

And don’t assume the opportunity will still be there tomorrow.

Take the first step: have MCAG review your eligibility and make sure you don’t leave money on the table.

Visa Debit Antitrust Litigation: Why Competition Matters

Recent litigation against Visa centers on competition in the U.S. debit market.

In cases filed in 2024 (In re Visa Debit Card Antitrust Litigation), merchants and cardholders allege that Visa used exclusive arrangements and network rules to limit competition—allowing it to maintain dominance and keep fees above competitive levels.

A federal judge has allowed key parts of the case to move forward, signaling that claims of harm—particularly higher prices passed on to consumers—are gaining traction.

For merchants, the issues are familiar:

• restrictions and incentives steering debit volume toward Visa

• limited ability to route transactions over competing networks

• pricing structures that make alternatives less viable

There are also broader claims that Visa’s strength in credit has reinforced its position in debit.

Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice filed its own antitrust case in 2024, increasing regulatory pressure.

The takeaway is clear: when competition weakens, merchant costs rise.

Fraud Liability Shift: How Risk Moved to Merchants

The EMV transition fundamentally changed how fraud risk is distributed across the payments ecosystem.

In B&R Supermarket, Inc. v. Visa, Inc., merchants challenged the shift of counterfeit fraud liability to businesses that had not yet adopted EMV-enabled terminals. The case—covering October 2015 through September 2017—resulted in a $231.7 million settlement involving Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express.

At its core, the case highlights a recurring pattern: network-driven changes often push cost and risk downstream.

For merchants, that meant:

• assuming liability for counterfeit fraud

• investing in new equipment

• absorbing increased chargebacks during the transition

While EMV ultimately reduced fraud, many merchants bore the cost before realizing the benefits.

The case is distinct from antitrust matters, but the lesson is the same: when network rules change, merchants often carry the initial burden.

Amex Anti-Steering: Limits on Merchant Control

The American Express anti-steering litigation focuses on one critical issue: control at the point of sale.

Historically, American Express has required merchants to accept anti-steering provisions, preventing them from:

• encouraging customers to use lower-cost cards

• offering incentives for alternative payment methods

• signaling a preference away from Amex

Because Amex typically carries higher fees, these restrictions directly impact merchant costs.

The legal foundation stems from Ohio v. American Express Co., where the Supreme Court upheld these rules under a two-sided market framework—making damages-based claims more difficult.

Recent litigation has evolved into two tracks:

• Consumers: Moskowitz et al. v. American Express resulted in a $17.5 million settlement

• Merchants: Ongoing cases seek injunctive relief and challenge programs like OptBlue

For merchants, the issue remains unresolved: limited control over payment choice and constrained ability to manage costs.

Mobile Wallet & Tokenization: The Next Frontier

A new wave of litigation is targeting mobile wallets and the technology layer sitting in front of traditional card networks.

In In re Apple Pay Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs allege Apple restricts competition by controlling access to NFC (tap-to-pay) functionality on iPhones.

The cases also focus on tokenization—where card data is replaced with a digital token during transactions.

That may sound technical, but the implications are real.

When payments move through a mobile wallet:

• routing decisions may be influenced by the wallet provider

• key transaction data may be obscured

• merchant control over the transaction flow can be reduced

Even when a customer uses a debit card, the wallet layer can fundamentally change how the transaction is processed.

These cases are still developing—but they signal where payment litigation is heading next.

Closing

Payment litigation isn’t just about past disputes—it’s a preview of how the industry is evolving and where costs are being decided.

Across these cases, a consistent pattern emerges:

• control over the transaction—through network rules, pricing structures, or technology layers—drives merchant cost

• when that control is concentrated, costs rise

• when it is challenged, opportunities for recovery and change emerge

For merchants, this isn’t abstract.

These cases directly influence what you pay, how your transactions are processed, and how much control you have over either.

Some cases create immediate recovery opportunities—like the Discover settlement.

Others quietly reshape the rules that will impact your business for years.

Both matter.

The reality: most organizations don’t realize they’re eligible—or how much is at stake—until the window to act is closing.

Staying informed isn’t enough.

You have to act.

Because in payment litigation, the difference between awareness and action is simple:

recovering funds—or leaving them behind.