Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	Legal and Regulatory Proceedings Mastercard is a party to legal and regulatory proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business. Some of these proceedings are based on complex claims involving substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine the probability of loss or estimate damages, and therefore, Mastercard has not established liabilities for any of these proceedings, except as discussed below. When the Company determines that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, Mastercard records a liability and discloses the amount of the liability if it is material. When a material loss contingency is only reasonably possible, Mastercard does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Unless otherwise stated below with respect to these matters, Mastercard cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss based on one or more of the following reasons: (1) actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of monetary damages or the amounts are unsupportable or exaggerated, (2) the matters are in early stages, (3) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (4) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, (5) the proceedings involve multiple defendants or potential defendants whose share of any potential financial responsibility has yet to be determined and/or (6) there are novel legal issues presented. Furthermore, except as identified with respect to the matters below, Mastercard does not believe that the outcome of any individual existing legal or regulatory proceeding to which it is a party will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition and overall business. However, an adverse judgment or other outcome or settlement with respect to any proceedings discussed below could result in fines or payments by Mastercard and/or could require Mastercard to change its business practices. In addition, an adverse outcome in a regulatory proceeding could lead to the filing of civil damage claims and possibly result in significant damage awards. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on Mastercard’s results of operations, financial condition and overall business. Interchange Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings Mastercard’s interchange fees and other practices are subject to regulatory, legal review and/or challenges in a number of jurisdictions, including the proceedings described below. When taken as a whole, the resulting decisions, regulations and legislation with respect to interchange fees and acceptance practices may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s prospects for future growth and its overall results of operations and financial condition. United States. In 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point-of-sale acceptance rules (including the “no surcharge” rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services, resulting in merchants paying excessive costs for the acceptance of Mastercard and Visa credit and debit cards. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720 (the “U.S. MDL Litigation Cases”). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking treble damages. In 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard’s initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the “IPO”) and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard’s right to assess them for Mastercard’s litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its no surcharge rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in 2013. Following an appeal by objectors and as a result of a reversal of the settlement approval by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings. The court divided the merchants’ claims into two separate classes - monetary damages claims (the “Damages Class”) and claims seeking changes to business practices (the “Rules Relief Class”). The court appointed separate counsel for each class. In 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims, with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement. The Damages Class settlement agreement became final in 2023. Since 2018, Mastercard has reached settlements or agreements in principle to settle with over 250 opt-out merchants. These opt-out merchant settlements, along with the Damages Class settlement, represent over 90% of Mastercard’s U.S. interchange volume. Approximately 60 individual opt-out merchants continue to litigate, seeking treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In 2024, the district court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to these ongoing individual opt-out merchant cases, sending the cases back to their original jurisdictions for trials. The remaining opt-out merchants claim aggregate single damages of approximately $10 billion with respect to their Mastercard purchase volume. Mastercard would be responsible for 36% of any Mastercard-related judgment pursuant to the 2011 judgment and settlement sharing agreement discussed above. The first trial in the opt-out merchant cases, which will involve five of the larger opt-out merchants, has been scheduled for October 2025. In 2021, the district court granted the Rules Relief Class’s motion for class certification. In 2024, the parties to the Rules Relief Class litigation entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the Rules Relief Class claims, which was subsequently denied by the court. The parties are in ongoing settlement discussions. The court has not yet scheduled a trial date. As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $679 million and $559 million, respectively, for the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases. The liability as of March 31, 2025 represents Mastercard’s best estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters and does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur. Europe. Since 2012, a number of United Kingdom (“U.K.”) merchants filed claims or threatened litigation against Mastercard seeking damages for excessive costs paid for acceptance of Mastercard credit and debit cards arising out of alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to, among other things, Mastercard’s cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic interchange fees (the “U.K. Merchant claimants”). In addition, Mastercard has faced similar filed or threatened litigation by merchants with respect to interchange rates in other countries in Europe (the “Pan-European Merchant claimants”). Mastercard has resolved a substantial amount of these damages claims through settlement or judgment. Following these settlements, approximately £0.2 billion (approximately $0.3 billion as of March 31, 2025) of unresolved damages claims remain. Mastercard continues to litigate with the remaining U.K. and Pan-European Merchant claimants and it has submitted statements of defense disputing liability and damages claims. A number of those matters are now progressing with motion practice and discovery. Hearings involving both liability and damages issues involving multiple merchant cases have been completed. The parties are awaiting decisions, after which additional hearings on liability and damages issues in those matters are expected. In a separate matter, Mastercard and Visa were served with a proposed collective action complaint in the U.K. on behalf of merchants seeking damages for commercial card transactions in both the U.K. and the European Union. In 2023, the plaintiffs filed a revised collective action application claiming damages against Mastercard in excess of £1 billion (approximately $1.3 billion as of March 31, 2025). In June 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs’ collective action application. Mastercard’s request for permission to appeal this ruling was denied. In 2016, a proposed collective action was filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of U.K. consumers seeking damages for intra-European Economic Area (“EEA”) and domestic U.K. interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by merchants between 1992 and 2008. The complaint, which seeks to leverage the European Commission’s 2007 decision on intra-EEA interchange fees, claims damages in an amount that exceeds £10 billion (approximately $13 billion as of March 31, 2025). In 2021, the trial court issued a decision in which it granted class certification to the plaintiffs but narrowed the scope of the class. Since January 2023, the trial court has held hearings on various issues, including whether any causal connection existed between the levels of Mastercard’s intra-EEA interchange fees and U.K. domestic interchange fees and regarding Mastercard’s request to narrow the number of years of damages sought by the plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. In February 2024, the trial court ruled in Mastercard’s favor, finding no causal connection between the levels of Mastercard’s intra-EEA interchange fees and U.K. domestic interchange fees. In June 2024, the trial court ruled in Mastercard’s favor with respect to its request to dismiss five years of the plaintiffs’ damages claims on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal this ruling was granted. In December 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. Mastercard recorded an accrual of £200 million ($259 million as of March 31, 2025) in December 2024 in connection with this settlement agreement. During a settlement approval hearing in February 2025, the trial court orally approved the settlement. Mastercard awaits the court’s written approval decision. Mastercard has been named as a defendant in a proposed consumer collective action filed in Portugal on behalf of Portuguese consumers. The complaint, which seeks to leverage the 2019 resolution of the European Commission’s investigation of Mastercard’s central acquiring rules and interregional interchange fees, claims damages of approximately €0.4 billion (approximately $0.4 billion as of March 31, 2025) for interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by Portuguese merchants for a period of approximately 20 years. Mastercard has submitted a statement of defense that disputes both liability and damages. Australia. In 2022, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) filed a complaint targeting certain agreements entered into by Mastercard and certain Australian merchants related to Mastercard’s debit program. The ACCC alleges that by entering into such agreements, Mastercard engaged in conduct with the purpose of substantially lessening competition in the supply of debit card acceptance services. The ACCC seeks both declaratory relief and monetary fines and costs. A hearing on liability issues that was originally scheduled for March 2025 has been pushed back to April 2026. ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints In 2011, a trade association of independent ATM operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the “ATM Operators Class Complaint”). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard’s and Visa’s respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of different putative classes of users of ATM services. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Class Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank (“Bank ATM Consumer Class Complaint”) and non-bank (“Non-bank ATM Consumer Class Complaint”) ATM operators as a result of the defendants’ ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. In 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s previous order granting class certification to the plaintiffs in all three class complaints. In 2024, Mastercard executed a settlement agreement with the class lawyers representing the Bank ATM Consumer Class, subject to court approval, and recorded an accrual of $93 million in connection with this matter. At a hearing held in January 2025, the court indicated that it intends to provide final approval of the settlement. The litigation with the ATM Operators Class and Non-bank ATM Consumer Class is ongoing. The plaintiffs in these two remaining class complaints, in aggregate, allege over $1 billion in single damages against all of the defendants. U.S. Liability Shift Litigation In 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the “Network Defendants”), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the “Bank Defendants”) engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the “EMV Liability Shift”), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law. The district court denied the Network Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases described above. In 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate single damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages and all briefs on summary judgment have been submitted. In September 2024, the district court denied the Network Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Telephone Consumer Protection Class Action Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank (“FAB”). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services that are received online via email. In 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ request for class certification, but narrowed the scope of the class to stand alone fax recipients only. Mastercard’s request to appeal that decision was denied. Briefing on plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definition and Mastercard’s cross-motion to decertify the stand alone fax recipient class was completed in April 2023 and the parties await the court’s decision. U.S. Department of Justice Investigation In 2023, Mastercard received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) seeking documents and information regarding a potential violation of Sections 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act. The CID focuses on Mastercard’s U.S. debit program and competition with other payment networks and technologies. Mastercard is cooperating with the DOJ in connection with the CID. European Commission Investigation In 2024, Mastercard received a formal request for information from the European Commission seeking documents and information in connection with an investigation into alleged anti-competitive behavior of certain card scheme services in the European Union/EEA. The request focuses on Mastercard’s practices regarding network fees related to acquirers. Mastercard is cooperating with the European Commission in connection with the request.

Mastercard is a party to legal and regulatory proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business. Some of these proceedings are based on complex claims involving substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine the probability of loss or estimate damages, and therefore, Mastercard has not established liabilities for any of these proceedings, except as discussed below. When the Company determines that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, Mastercard records a liability and discloses the amount of the liability if it is material. When a material loss contingency is only reasonably possible, Mastercard does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Unless otherwise stated below with respect to these matters, Mastercard cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss based on one or more of the following reasons: (1) actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of monetary damages or the amounts are unsupportable or exaggerated, (2) the matters are in early stages, (3) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (4) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, (5) the proceedings involve multiple defendants or potential defendants whose share of any potential financial responsibility has yet to be determined and/or (6) there are novel legal issues presented. Furthermore, except as identified with respect to the matters below, Mastercard does not believe that the outcome of any individual existing legal or regulatory proceeding to which it is a party will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition and overall business. However, an adverse judgment or other outcome or settlement with respect to any proceedings discussed below could result in fines or payments by Mastercard and/or could require Mastercard to change its business practices. In addition, an adverse outcome in a regulatory proceeding could lead to the filing of civil damage claims and possibly result in significant damage awards. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on Mastercard’s results of operations, financial condition and overall business.

United States. In 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point-of-sale acceptance rules (including the “no surcharge” rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling

In 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard’s initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the “IPO”) and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard’s right to assess them for Mastercard’s litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

In 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its no surcharge rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in 2013. Following an appeal by objectors and as a result of a reversal of the settlement approval by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings. The court divided the merchants’ claims into two separate classes - monetary damages claims (the “Damages Class”) and claims seeking changes to business practices (the “Rules Relief Class”). The court appointed separate counsel for each class.

In 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims, with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement. The Damages Class settlement agreement became final in 2023. Since 2018, Mastercard has reached settlements or agreements in principle to settle with over 250 opt-out merchants. These opt-out merchant settlements, along with the Damages Class settlement, represent over 90% of Mastercard’s U.S. interchange volume.

Approximately 60 individual opt-out merchants continue to litigate, seeking treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In 2024, the district court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to these ongoing individual opt-out merchant cases, sending the cases back to their original jurisdictions for trials. The remaining opt-out merchants claim aggregate single damages of approximately $10 billion with respect to their Mastercard purchase volume. Mastercard would be responsible for 36% of any Mastercard-related judgment pursuant to the 2011 judgment and settlement sharing agreement discussed above. The first trial in the opt-out merchant cases, which will involve five of the larger opt-out merchants, has been scheduled for October 2025.

Europe. Since 2012, a number of United Kingdom (“U.K.”) merchants filed claims or threatened litigation against Mastercard seeking damages for excessive costs paid for acceptance of Mastercard credit and debit cards arising out of alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to, among other things, Mastercard’s cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic interchange fees (the “U.K. Merchant claimants”). In addition, Mastercard has faced similar filed or threatened litigation by merchants with respect to interchange rates in other countries in Europe (the “Pan-European Merchant claimants”). Mastercard has resolved a substantial amount of these damages claims through settlement or judgment. Following these settlements, approximately £0.2 billion (approximately $0.3 billion as of March 31, 2025) of unresolved damages claims remain. Mastercard continues to litigate with the remaining U.K. and Pan-European Merchant claimants and it has submitted statements of defense disputing liability and damages claims. A number of those matters are now progressing with motion practice and discovery. Hearings involving both liability and damages issues involving multiple merchant cases

In a separate matter, Mastercard and Visa were served with a proposed collective action complaint in the U.K. on behalf of merchants seeking damages for commercial card transactions in both the U.K. and the European Union. In 2023, the plaintiffs filed a revised collective action application claiming damages against Mastercard in excess of £1 billion (approximately $1.3 billion as of March 31, 2025). In June 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs’ collective action application. Mastercard’s request for permission to appeal this ruling was denied.

In 2016, a proposed collective action was filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of U.K. consumers seeking damages for intra-European Economic Area (“EEA”) and domestic U.K. interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by merchants between 1992 and 2008. The complaint, which seeks to leverage the European Commission’s 2007 decision on intra-EEA interchange fees, claims damages in an amount that exceeds £10 billion (approximately $13 billion as of March 31, 2025). In 2021, the trial court issued a decision in which it granted class certification to the plaintiffs but narrowed the scope of the class. Since January 2023, the trial court has held hearings on various issues, including whether any causal connection existed between the levels of Mastercard’s intra-EEA interchange fees and U.K. domestic interchange fees and regarding Mastercard’s request to narrow the number of years of damages sought by the plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. In February 2024, the trial court ruled in Mastercard’s favor, finding no causal connection between the levels of Mastercard’s intra-EEA interchange fees and U.K. domestic interchange fees. In June 2024, the trial court ruled in Mastercard’s favor with respect to its request to dismiss five years of the plaintiffs’ damages claims on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal this ruling was granted. In December 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. Mastercard recorded an accrual of £200 million ($259 million as of March 31, 2025) in December 2024 in connection with this settlement agreement. During a settlement approval hearing in February 2025, the trial court orally approved the settlement. Mastercard awaits the court’s written approval decision.

Mastercard has been named as a defendant in a proposed consumer collective action filed in Portugal on behalf of Portuguese consumers. The complaint, which seeks to leverage the 2019 resolution of the European Commission’s investigation of Mastercard’s central acquiring rules and interregional interchange fees, claims damages of approximately €0.4 billion (approximately $0.4 billion as of March 31, 2025) for interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by Portuguese merchants for a period of approximately 20 years. Mastercard has submitted a statement of defense that disputes both liability and damages.

Australia. In 2022, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) filed a complaint targeting certain agreements entered into by Mastercard and certain Australian merchants related to Mastercard’s debit program. The ACCC alleges that by entering into such agreements, Mastercard engaged in conduct with the purpose of substantially lessening competition in the supply of debit card acceptance services. The ACCC seeks both declaratory relief and monetary fines and costs. A hearing on liability issues that was originally scheduled for March 2025 has been pushed back to April 2026.

In 2011, a trade association of independent ATM operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the “ATM Operators Class Complaint”). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard’s and Visa’s respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of different putative classes of users of ATM services. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Class Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank (“Bank ATM Consumer Class Complaint”) and non-bank (“Non-bank ATM Consumer Class Complaint”) ATM operators as a result of the defendants’ ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. In 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s previous order granting class certification to the plaintiffs in all three class complaints.

In 2024, Mastercard executed a settlement agreement with the class lawyers representing the Bank ATM Consumer Class, subject to court approval, and recorded an accrual of $93 million in connection with this matter. At a hearing held in January 2025, the court indicated that it intends to provide final approval of the settlement. The litigation with the ATM Operators Class and Non-bank ATM Consumer Class is ongoing. The plaintiffs in these two remaining class complaints, in aggregate, allege over $1 billion in single damages against all of the defendants.

In 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the “Network Defendants”), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the “Bank Defendants”) engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the “EMV Liability Shift”), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law. The district court denied the Network Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases described above. In 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate single damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages and all briefs on summary judgment have been submitted. In September 2024, the district court denied the Network Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank (“FAB”). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services that are received online via email. In 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ request for class certification, but narrowed the scope of the class to stand alone fax recipients only. Mastercard’s request to appeal that decision was denied. Briefing on plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definition and Mastercard’s cross-motion to decertify the stand alone fax recipient class was completed in April 2023 and the parties await the court’s decision.