UK Supreme Court enables $18.5 billion class action against Mastercard

[snoop1130]

UK Supreme Court enables $18.5 billion class action against Mastercard

By Kirstin Ridley

 

FILE PHOTO: A Mastercard logo is seen on a credit card in this picture illustration August 30, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) -A landmark UK Supreme Court ruling on Friday has allowed a 14 billion pound ($18.5 billion) class action to proceed against Mastercard for allegedly overcharging more than 46 million people in Britain over a 15-year period.

 

The complex case, brought after Mastercard lost an appeal against a 2007 European Commission ruling that its fees were anti-competitive, could entitle adults in Britain to 300 pounds each if it is successful.

 

The court dismissed a Mastercard appeal, setting the scene for Britain’s first mass consumer claim brought under a new legal regime and establishing a standard for a string of other stalled class actions.

 

“Mastercard has been a sustained competition law breaker, imposing excessive card transaction charges over a prolonged period in a way it must have known would impose an invisible tax on UK consumers,” said Walter Merricks, a lawyer who is leading the action.

 

Mastercard said the claim was being driven by “hit and hope” U.S. lawyers.

 

The Supreme Court ruling sends the case back to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), nominated in 2015 to oversees Britain’s fledgling, U.S.-style “opt-out” collective class actions for breaches of UK or European Union competition law.

 

Mastercard said it would ask the CAT to “avert the serious risk of the new collective action regime going down the wrong path with a case which is fundamentally flawed”.

 

The CAT will now have to reconsider granting the necessary collective proceedings order (CPO) for the case to proceed to trial, having refusing to certify the case in 2017 because of its complexity. A hearing is expected next year.

 

The case centres on so-called interchange fees which credit and debit card companies say they levy on merchants’ banks to cover the costs of card services, security and innovation.

 

Merricks, who is being advised by law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, alleges these fees were excessive between 1992 and 2008, that they had to be paid by businesses that accepted Mastercard payments from British consumers and were passed on through increased shop prices.

 

Under the opt-out collective action regime, UK-based members of a defined group are automatically bound into legal action unless they opt out.

 

Critics say such regimes encourage claims without merit. But others argue they can offer an effective and economic route to compensation for consumers and businesses.

 

Kenny Henderson, a partner at law firm CMS, said the ruling could trigger many more large claims and a shift towards a class action culture associated with the United States.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-11

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Chomper Higgot]

“The complex case, brought after Mastercard lost an appeal against a 2007 European Commission ruling that its fees were anti-competitive, could entitle adults in Britain to 300 pounds each if it is successful.”

 

Some may feel obligated, as a matter of principle, to refuse the £300.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

Kenny Henderson, a partner at law firm CMS, said the ruling could trigger many more large claims and a shift towards a class action culture associated with the United States.

Let’s hope not. 

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Kenny Henderson, a partner at law firm CMS, said the ruling could trigger many more large claims and a shift towards a class action culture associated with the United States.

Let’s hope not. 

 

I will keep my own counsel on that until after I get my three hundred quid.

[Bluespunk]

27 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

I will keep my own counsel on that until after I get my three hundred quid.

Yeah well, I get that, but ultimately no one forced me to use their cards, 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Bluespunk

[herwin1234]

i am all for consumer protection but fining a company for too high fees decades ago, i am not so sure about that.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, herwin1234 said:

i am all for consumer protection but fining a company for too high fees decades ago, i am not so sure about that.

So if a company can hide their abuse or  delay investigations of their abuse they should get away with it?!

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So if a company can hide their abuse or  delay investigations of their abuse they should get away with it?!

 

  What is the "abuse" you are referring too , or do you just like using that word for affect

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  What is the "abuse" you are referring too , or do you just like using that word for affect

Systematically overcharging customers is an abuse.

 

Hence the ruling against the credit card companies and the subject class action.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[CorpusChristie]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Systematically overcharging customers is an abuse.

 

Hence the ruling against the credit card companies and the subject class action.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse

 

 

  They can charge whatever fees they want to charge and its up to the customer whether they stay with the company or find another one .

  Having high fees isnt overcharging , its setting the fees at a level that the market will endure , its not illegal to make a profit  

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  They can charge whatever fees they want to charge and its up to the customer whether they stay with the company or find another one .

  Having high fees isnt overcharging , its setting the fees at a level that the market will endure , its not illegal to make a profit  

That’s plain nonsense.

 

Credit businesses are regulated by law, hence the ruling and subsequent class action.

 

 

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s plain nonsense.

 

Credit businesses are regulated by law, hence the ruling and subsequent class action.

 

 

 

    The Court "ruling" has ruled that a legal Court case can go ahead , the Court case about any wrong doing hasnt happened yet , you seem to think a forthcoming Court case proves guilt .

  The Court case hasnt happened yet and its yet to be shown whether any laws were broken 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

    The Court "ruling" has ruled that a legal Court case can go ahead , the Court case about any wrong doing hasnt happened yet , you seem to think a forthcoming Court case proves guilt .

  The Court case hasnt happened yet and its yet to be shown whether any laws were broken 

The ruling against the credit card companies has already determined they broke EU law.

 

The class action case is a claim for compensation.

 

The law breaking bit is settled.

[Pedrogaz]

Anyone who screws MC, Visa etc is doing God's work.

[2530Ubon]

15 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah well, I get that, but ultimately no one forced me to use their cards, 

Actually you were forced to use their cards. There were (and they still are the only major players in processing payments) only 3 options available at the time in the UK; Visa, Mastercard and American Express. Every time your bank issued you with a credit or debit card, the payments were processed by one of these companies. Your credit or debit card may have Capital One / HSBC /Barclays written on it, but they are not the payment processors when you use your card in a shop, or online.

 

It's a very complex case, but essentially, due to market monopoly, prices were higher in stores due to excessive fees. An invisible tax is the easiest way to describe it. So if you were paying cash, you were being secretly taxed more to cover those mastercard payments. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Actually you were forced to use their cards. There were (and they still are the only major players in processing payments) only 3 options available at the time in the UK; Visa, Mastercard and American Express. Every time your bank issued you with a credit or debit card, the payments were processed by one of these companies. Your credit or debit card may have Capital One / HSBC /Barclays written on it, but they are not the payment processors when you use your card in a shop, or online.

 

It's a very complex case, but essentially, due to market monopoly, prices were higher in stores due to excessive fees. An invisible tax is the easiest way to describe it. So if you were paying cash, you were being secretly taxed more to cover those mastercard payments. 

I chose to use credit cards back then.

 

No one forced me to do so.

 

Jus as no one forces me to do these days.

 

If I use credit card that is on me, nobody else.

[2530Ubon]

32 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I chose to use credit cards back then.

 

No one forced me to do so.

 

Jus as no one forces me to do these days.

 

If I use credit card that is on me, nobody else.

You don't understand. You were being charged extra even if you WEREN'T using a mastercard. It does not only pertain to credit cards, but also DEBIT cards.

 

So unless you have been living under a rock - or you worked in a shady underground operation that uses cash only, then you most definitely had at least a debit card. When you went into a shop, or some ATM's, those payments would have been processed by a company called mastercard. They do not issue credit, they process payments. Your bank does not and did not process those payments, mastercard or visa processed them.

 

It also doesn't matter which bank or credit card you use, those payments will always be processed by one of the big two payment processors. I used to work for HSBC bank, and understand a little about this topic.

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

You don't understand. You were being charged extra even if you WEREN'T using a mastercard. It does not only pertain to credit cards, but also DEBIT cards.

 

So unless you have been living under a rock - or you worked in a shady underground operation that uses cash only, then you most definitely had at least a debit card. When you went into a shop, or some ATM's, those payments would have been processed by a company called mastercard. They do not issue credit, they process payments. Your bank does not and did not process those payments, mastercard or visa processed them.

 

It also doesn't matter which bank or credit card you use, those payments will always be processed by one of the big two payment processors. I used to work for HSBC bank, and understand a little about this topic.

Oh dear, us cash users are criminals by default. Who knew? Except you of course. 
 

Now let me explain to you...you don’t understand.

 

No one forces me to use credit cards (the theme of this thread) or debit cards. 

 

[2530Ubon]

13 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Oh dear, us cash users are criminals by default. Who knew? Except you of course. 
 

Now let me explain to you...you don’t understand.

 

No one forces me to use credit cards (the theme of this thread) or debit cards. 

 

So you have never had a job that required you to have a bank account to have a salary paid into it? I was forced to open an HSBC account when I became an employee, the same way that when I worked for any other company, I also was forced to have a bank account, with which they could pay my salary.

 

And you were still being overcharged for everything if you were using cash - shops had to put up prices to cover those transaction costs. So if you never used a mastercard, you were being royally screwed! Hence why it was called an invisible tax.

 

The subject of this thread is NOT credit cards - It's about mastercard - a payment processor. I can't explain it any more simply.

 

Why else do you think almost every adult in the UK would be able to claim 300 pounds? Every adult certainly did not have a mastercard issued credit or debit card. But every adult in the UK bought something from a shop, be it with a card or cash.

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

So you have never had a job that required you to have a bank account to have a salary paid into it? I was forced to open an HSBC account when I became an employee, the same way that when I worked for any other company, I also was forced to have a bank account, with which they could pay my salary.

 

And you were still being overcharged for everything if you were using cash - shops had to put up prices to cover those transaction costs. So if you never used a mastercard, you were being royally screwed! Hence why it was called an invisible tax.

 

The subject of this thread is NOT credit cards - It's about mastercard - a payment processor. I can't explain it any more simply.

 

Why else do you think almost every adult in the UK would be able to claim 300 pounds? Every adult certainly did not have a mastercard issued credit or debit card. But every adult in the UK bought something from a shop, be it with a card or cash.

 

 No one forced me to do any of the above.

 

I can’t explain that any more simpler. 
 

No one forced me to use cards.

 

No employer forced me to open any bank account in the uk.

 

Everything I do when it comes to my spending are choices I made and how I paid was again my choice.

 

Simple enough for you?

[2530Ubon]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

 No one forced me to do any of the above.

 

I can’t explain that any more simpler. 
 

No one forced me to use cards.

 

No employer forced me to open any bank account in the uk.

 

Everything I do when it comes to my spending are choices I made and how I paid was again my choice.

 

Simple enough for you?

Sure... ok. you had bank accounts and credit cards but you didn't need them. I'm sure we all believe you.

 

Anyway, that's not the important bit. You were still being overcharged for everything you ever bought in a store because of mastercard. Your spending choices had nothing to do with it.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Sure... ok. you had bank accounts and credit cards but you didn't need them. I'm sure we all believe you.

 

Anyway, that's not the important bit. You were still being overcharged for everything you ever bought in a store because of mastercard. Your spending choices had nothing to do with it.

I never said I didn’t need bank accounts or credit cards.

 

My choices on how I spend in stores, cash or card, have everything to do with it.

 

No one forced me either way.

 

That is the important bit. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[2530Ubon]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

My choices on how I spend in stores, cash or card, have everything to do with it.

Nope, they don't. That's why even if you NEVER used a credit or debit card, you are still entitled to 300 pounds (if the court case is won).

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Nope, they don't. That's why even if you NEVER used a credit or debit card, you are still entitled to 300 pounds (if the court case is won).

So what. I don’t care whether I get £300 or not. 
 

I certainly wouldn’t opt into a lawsuit over charges being made because of how I chose to pay for my purchases. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I chose to use credit cards back then.

 

No one forced me to do so.

 

Jus as no one forces me to do these days.

 

If I use credit card that is on me, nobody else.

That’s not the point made.

 

At the time of these abuses, the options open to consumers were limited, and as often occurs when there is little or no choice in the market the service providers abused their control of the market.

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not the point made.

 

At the time of these abuses, the options open to consumers were limited, and as often occurs when there is little or no choice in the market the service providers abused their control of the market.

Not the point I am making either.
 

As I have made perfectly clear to the other poster, no one forced me to use a card or do anything else. 

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Not the point I am making either.
 

As I have made perfectly clear to the other poster, no one forced me to use a card or do anything else. 

Which is irrelevant.

 

The CC companies have been found to be in breach of EU law, they abused their customers.

 

The UK Supreme Court is now hearing a class action wrt that abuse.

 

That customers willingly chose to use the services of the respondent CC companies is of not material importance to the court’s findings.

 

As per my first post on the subject, individuals may, on the basis of principle, feel obliged to refuse compensation.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[from the home of CC]

legalized loansharking is basically the business model but nobody shows up to your door with a gun forcing you to borrow money or use their services. Monthly statements show exactly the cost to you, if you continued to use the product knowing this cost then it's on you. To suggest someone else is responsible is blatant irresponsibility and a typical whine from a nanny state inhabitant..

Edited December 12, 2020 by from the home of CC

[2530Ubon]

6 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

legalized loansharking is basically the business model but nobody shows up to your door with a gun forcing you to borrow money or use their services. Monthly statements show exactly the cost to you, if you continued to use the product knowing this cost then it's on you. To suggest someone else is responsible is blatant irresponsibility and a typical whine from a nanny state..

Another one who doesn't get it. People see mastercard on their credit or debit card, and think we are talking about credit cards.

 

Do any of you know what mastercard is, or what it does as a company?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/020215/visa-vs-mastercard-there-difference.asp

 

Visa vs. MasterCard: An Overview

The electronic payments industry is dominated by four companies. Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover are responsible for handling the majority of the world’s card payments.1 Visa and MasterCard present unique offerings since neither company is involved with extending credit or issuing any cards. This means that all Visa and MasterCard payment cards are issued through some type of co-branded relationship.2

 

 While the two companies don’t extend or issue any cards, they do partner to offer the broadest array of products encompassing credit, debit, and prepaid card options.

 

We are not talking about credit cards. You have all been forced to used these companies as they process your payments

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[2530Ubon]

 

Step 1: The customer pays with Mastercard

The customer purchases goods/services from a merchant.

Step 2: The payment is authenticated

The merchant point-of-sale system captures the customer’s account information and securely sends it to the acquirer.

Step 3: The transaction is submitted

The merchant acquirer asks Mastercard to get an authorization from the customer’s issuing bank.

Step 4: Authorization is requested

Mastercard submits the transaction to the issuer for authorization.

Step 5: Authorization response

The issuing bank authorizes the transaction and routes the response back to the merchant.

Step 6: Merchant payment

The issuing bank routes the payment to the merchant’s acquirer who deposits the payment into the merchant’s account.

https://www.mastercard.co.th/en-th/merchants/start-accepting/payment-process.html

What's an acquirer?

Also known as a merchant bank, an acquirer is a financial institution licensed by Mastercard that helps a merchant fulfill its obligation to accept Mastercard.

 

What's an issuer?

An issuer is the bank, credit union, savings and loan association, government entity (such as a postal organization) or retailer that provides a credit line or a debit card to a consumer or business.

 

What's Mastercard’s role?

Mastercard is neither an issuer nor an acquirer. Our role is to provide the technology and the network that power transactions.