Vigilant
Just explore Start now

Payments Glossary · Cases & Collapses

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation (MDL 1720)

Also called MDL 1720, swipe fee litigation, interchange antitrust

The long-running antitrust case against Visa and Mastercard over interchange, comprising two separate settlements that agents routinely confuse.

What it is

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720 in the Eastern District of New York, is the multidistrict litigation in which merchants allege that Visa, Mastercard and issuing banks conspired to fix interchange fees and to impose rules that prevented merchants from steering customers to cheaper payment methods. There are two distinct settlements and conflating them is the single most common error in this subject. The Rule 23(b)(3) damages settlement is a cash fund for past overcharges. It received final approval on December 13, 2019, was affirmed by the Second Circuit except as to one aspect, established a 5.54 billion dollar fund, and covered merchants that accepted cards between January 1, 2004 and January 25, 2019. Claims closed February 4, 2025, first partial payments went out in February 2026 to roughly 600,000 claims, and a second distribution motion was pending with distribution anticipated around September 2026. The Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief settlement is entirely separate and forward-looking, changing network rules and rates rather than paying damages. It received preliminary approval in June 2026 and is not in effect. A great deal of money in the damages fund, roughly 5 billion dollars, remained undistributed as of this research, which is why claim-filing predators remain active.

Why it matters to your business

If you accepted cards during the damages class period, you may have a claim in a process that has already closed for new claims, and you should be extremely careful with anyone who calls offering to file for you for a percentage. The official administrator charges nothing. If someone tells you your rates are about to fall because of this litigation, they are describing the other settlement, the one with only preliminary approval, and they are getting ahead of the facts. This is education, not legal advice. If you have a live claim question, that is a matter for your own attorney or the official settlement administrator.

Where it gets contested

The dispute that most affects merchants right now is not the underlying antitrust theory, it is the harvesting of claimants. Third-party claim aggregators charge 15 to 30 percent of recoveries on the damages fund, and merchants routinely sign up without realizing the official administrator is free and that no one is required to use any third-party service to participate in monetary relief. On the merits, the case has run for roughly two decades because the remedy is genuinely hard. Damages compensate past overcharges but do nothing about the rules; rule changes affect the future but not the past. Splitting into two settlements solved a procedural problem and created a communication one, since the same case name now covers a closed damages process and an unapproved forward-looking deal. What remains unresolved is the injunctive settlement itself, which has only preliminary approval, faces objections from major merchant groups, and could take years to become final.

How to check it yourself

Go to the official settlement website directly and read the FAQ rather than responding to any inbound call, letter or email offering to file on your behalf for a percentage of recovery.

Receipts

Claims above that are checkable, with where to check them. Published so you do not have to take anyone's word for it.