UK Supreme Court enables $18.5 billion class action against Mastercard

[Bluespunk]

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

It’s not irrelevant to the series of posts I engaged in with other poster.

 

My point was I never was forced to use a credit card and any charges I accumulated were because of my choices. 
 

The fact he did not agree with me doesn’t change that one bit.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[2530Ubon]

35 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

My point was I never was forced to use a credit card and any charges I accumulated were because of my choices. 
 

The fact he did not agree with me doesn’t change that one bit.

It was a little bit my fault too, I got sucked into your argument when I was trying to explain what mastercard is and does. Whilst you are correct that no one can force you to take a credit card or bank card, the option of who processes that payment has been forced, because there is no other option.

 

Mastercard isn't a credit card or a debit card. If you go on their website, you will find it impossible to apply for any type of card with them, because it does not issue cards. It is a payment processor. Anytime you used any credit or bank card, no matter what name is on the card, you 100% used mastercard as your payment processor.

 

I hope my previous posts with diagrams and a statement from mastercards own website has clarified things.

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

It was a little bit my fault too, I got sucked into your argument when I was trying to explain what mastercard is and does. Whilst you are correct that no one can force you to take a credit card or bank card, the option of who processes that payment has been forced, because there is no other option.

 

Mastercard isn't a credit card or a debit card. If you go on their website, you will find it impossible to apply for any type of card with them, because it does not issue cards. It is a payment processor. Anytime you used any credit or bank card, no matter what name is on the card, you 100% used mastercard as your payment processor.

 

I hope my previous posts with diagrams and a statement from mastercards own website has clarified things.

Look I don’t want to get into this again. We don’t agree, let’s leave it at that. 

[2530Ubon]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Look I don’t want to get into this again. We don’t agree, let’s leave it at that. 

I agree that no one can force you to have a card - Just please look at what mastercard IS. They are not talking about interest or charges on your card.

[Bluespunk]

Sigh...

[2530Ubon]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

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

I'm only trying to help explain what this is about. Perhaps reading the article you are commenting on fully, would help you understand the situation. As you don't want to be a part of this, you should note the article:

 

Under UK law, you are already a part of the law suit. You must opt-out if you wish to have no part:

Quote

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

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[Bluespunk]

27 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

I'm only trying to help explain what this is about. Perhaps reading the article you are commenting on fully, would help you understand the situation. As you don't want to be a part of this, you should note the article:

 

Under UK law, you are already a part of the law suit. You must opt-out if you wish to have no part:

 

Thank you  for the patronising tone. Much appreciated. 
 

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

 

I said I wouldn’t opt in 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[johnnybangkok]

16 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Thank you  for the patronising tone. Much appreciated. 
 

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

 

I said I wouldn’t opt in 

 

You really are not getting this even though someone is trying VERY patiently to explain it to you. 

The whole point is you had no choice. EVERYONE who paid for anything during the period mentioned were being overcharged because in turn retailers were being overcharged and passed on the excessive costs to the customer - doesn't matter if you paid with a credit card, a debit card, cash or magic beans EVERYONE was being overcharged thanks to Mastercard, hence why everyone will get 300 quid. Get it?

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You really are not getting this even though someone is trying VERY patiently to explain it to you. 

The whole point is you had no choice. EVERYONE who paid for anything during the period mentioned were being overcharged because in turn retailers were being overcharged and passed on the excessive costs to the customer - doesn't matter if you paid with a credit card, a debit card, cash or magic beans EVERYONE was being overcharged thanks to Mastercard, hence why everyone will get 300 quid. Get it?

And you don’t get that it doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I really have no interest in being part of any class action lawsuit over this.
 

Got it. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[johnnybangkok]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

And you don’t get that it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. 
 

Got it. 

Yeah nice try. You got it wrong and rather than apologise and accept you got it wrong you're now 'not bothered'.

Do you often comment on subjects you're ' not bothered about in the slightest". If so, why?

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yeah nice try. You got it wrong and rather than apologise and accept you got it wrong you're now 'not bothered'.

Do you often comment on subjects you're ' not bothered about in the slightest". If so, why?

Nope. Stand by everything I said.

 

A poster said I was forced to use their cards (page 1) and that is just not true.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[alex8912]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Look I don’t want to get into this again. We don’t agree, let’s leave it at that. 

So why can’t you then you tool? It’s a riot. 

[Bluespunk]

Just now, alex8912 said:

So why can’t you then you tool? It’s a riot. 

Ah, the intellectuals have arrived...

[BusyB]

12 hours 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. 

 

The MC charge was included in the retail price tag regardless to protect the merchants, who were the ones who actually had to pay the transaction fee. So consumers paid a Master Card charge even if they paid cash. That's why everyone in UK is entitled to 300 quid (if the case goes through) as long as they can prove they were adult and in the UK between 1992 and 2008.

 

The EU case led to things like major changes to the way bonuses for card holders were valued, like accruing airmiles when using cards for private purposes. With MC I now only get 1 airmile per €2 I spend on the card, instead of the 1 for €1 spend I previously got. 50% less. It made a noticeable difference to me. That went down several years ago in the EU alongside some insurance related changes. I can't remember hearing anything about €300 compensation though.

 

There are now separate MC cards for business/private. Previously they were combined in one and it was a pretty good deal - financed by all the consumers who didn't use them. Businesspeople still get 1 airmile for every €1 spent, because as businesspeople MC hits them with the transaction charge. As a private person MC is not allowed to charge me. Merchants/businesses are also not allowed to pass on the MC charge on to me either. Result: I only get 50% airmiles.

 

I believe the same holds for all cards, but I rarely use the Visa cos I'm more interested in airmiles, and Visa is expensive. I only hold one for airport lounge purposes and as an emergency spare basically.

Edited December 12, 2020 by BusyB
Changing airmails to airmiles - dam spellchecker/and some rewriting

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nope. Stand by everything I said.

 

A poster said I was forced to use their cards (page 1) and that is just not true.

No he didnt. You just dont get it.

[Sujo]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Thank you  for the patronising tone. Much appreciated. 
 

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

 

I said I wouldn’t opt in 

 

You dont chose to opt in, you are automatically in. You have to opt out.

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You dont chose to opt in, you are automatically in. You have to opt out.

I lnow

[Bluespunk]

14 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

Actually you were forced to use their cards.

 

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No he didnt. You just dont get it.

Please read the above. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bluespunk

[Chomper Higgot]

I have used Mastercard’s services for decades, always of my own free volition, I always knew the charges and I agreed, of my own free volition, to those charges when I used the service.

 

What I never knew, but thanks to the EU ruling now know, is Mastercard we’re making hidden and illegal additions within the charges to the transactions I had voluntarily signed up for.

 

My voluntary, unforced, use of Mastercard’s services was never an agreement to them making illegal charges and at no time did Mastercard seek my ‘informed consent’ for MasterCard to make illegal charges to

my transactions.

 

The statements I received included hidden illegal charges, I paid my statements in good faith.

 

Many other users were in debt, struggling to pay credit card bills, a part of which we now know to have been illegal charges.

 

MasterCard’s abuse of its customers is far from a victimless crime.

 

Other’s might, on a matter of principle, feel obliged to refuse compensation from

MasterCard.

 

I’ll be well happy to receive compensation, doubly so given the part the EU has played in bring this abuse by a multinational corporation to an end.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[2530Ubon]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I have used Mastercard’s services for decades, always of my own free volition, I always knew the charges and I agreed, of my own free volition, to those charges when I used the service.

 

What I never knew, but thanks to the EU ruling now know, is Mastercard we’re making hidden and illegal additions within the charges to the transactions I had voluntarily signed up for.

 

My voluntary, unforced, use of Mastercard’s services was never an agreement to them making illegal charges and at no time did Mastercard seek my ‘informed consent’ for MasterCard to make illegal charges to

my transactions.

 

No, sorry, you've got it wrong. You don't use Mastercards services, and you are not a customer of Mastercard. You have never willingly, and I'm sorry to say, or knowingly used their services. You used the services and received charges from your credit / debit card ISSUER - which would be the name of your bank, eg; HSBC, Barclays etc.

 

This case is not about credit cards - which I hasten to add is not what Mastercard is. Mastercard is a payment processor. They provide the network and security that processes all financial transactions. They are one of two major players - the other being VISA.

 

Just because you see Mastercard on the bottom right hand corner of your Credit or Debit card,  does not mean that your credit comes from Mastercard. It means that all transactions are secure with mastercard.

The same way VISA is written on other cards. They do not issue credit or issue cards. Visa secures the transaction.

 

Mastercard does not and has never issued cards. Your Bank, or other financial institution issues you a credit/debit card.

 

They do not and have not ever issued credit. Your Bank, or other financial Institution issues you with a credit line

 

Mastercard does not and has never set interest rates for your card. Your Bank, or other financial institution sets these rates.

 

Look at it this way. When you buy a new laptop or computer, you will see the brand name of the manufacturer - let's say DELL. somewhere on the computer, you will have a sticker or label that say's "McAfee secured" with a free trial (usually a year) with their security software. This does not mean the laptop was made my McAfee, or that you have ever dealt with McAfee personally. It's a security feature of your laptop that comes with your purchase.

 

That's what Mastercard IS. It's a security feature that comes with the card issued by your bank.

Your bank sets out all of the terms and conditions for your card. They decide which interest rate they wish to charge you. They decide how large your credit line is.

Mastercard is the feature part of your card that securely processes all of your payments.

 

Now the reason you are entitled to 300 GBP compensation, is because all merchants secretly put up the prices of all of their products during that time to compensate for mastercard PROCESSING fees. These fees hit everyone - even those who paid by cash. It did not matter how you spent money - digitally or physically, the invisible tax was already there.

 

You could have NEVER used a credit or debit card in your life, and you are still entitled to 300GBP.

 

Of course, you could be talking about something completely different. This is not an EU ruling, and is not an EU case. This article and thread is about a UK court case and ruling.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[2530Ubon]

An even better analogy would be to use computer processors.

 

Have a look at your desktop computer/laptop/iPad/iPhone/smartphone. I will again use a laptop for this example, but it works with anything. 

 

This time, let's say you have an ACER laptop. You have a relationship with that brand name - ACER. If anything goes wrong with your laptop, you have a warranty with ACER, and they will deal with any repairs, problems or questions about your laptop. ACER's name will be at the top of your machine - Just like Barclays would be written on the top of your credit/debit card.

 

However, usually on the bottom right hand corner you will see another brand name, usually on a sticker you can remove.

This label probably have one of three things - Intel, AMD or NVIDIA - Just like your credit or debit card will have Mastercard or VISA on the same bottom right hand corner of your card.

 

Intel, AMD & NVIDIA are your laptops processors. You did not buy anything from these companies. You are not their customer. They did not make your machine, they supply the architecture that securely PROCESSES all of your computers commands. If you have a problem with your machine, you will take it to ACER. ACER will have written the terms of your warranty.

Edited December 13, 2020 by 2530Ubon