A coalition of large retailers is pressing for a courtroom showdown before a judge signs off on a proposed settlement with Visa and Mastercard over long-running disputes about credit card swipe fees.
Among those pushing for oral arguments is retail giant Walmart, joined by trade groups like the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. Their message to U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan is simple: don’t rule on the settlement until the court hears directly from merchants.
Convenience store operators and fuel retailers also filed similar requests, signaling widespread unease about the proposed agreement.
A Case Two Decades in the Making
The dispute dates back to 2005, when merchants accused Visa and Mastercard of inflating interchange fees through antitrust violations. Retailers argued they had been forced to overpay for years under network rules that limited their ability to steer customers toward cheaper payment options.
After years of litigation, a tentative settlement was announced last November. But many merchants say the deal falls short.
What the Proposed Settlement Includes
Under the draft agreement:
- Credit card interchange rates would drop by 0.1% for five years
- A capped rate of 1.25% would apply to standard consumer cards for eight years
- Merchants would gain limited power to reject certain high-fee cards
- Some surcharges on credit cards would be permitted
These changes would loosen the networks’ long-standing “honor all cards” requirement, which forces merchants to accept every card issued under a brand.
Yet critics argue the relief is minimal compared to the billions retailers say they’ve paid in excess fees.
Why Merchants Want Oral Arguments
Retailers say the written record alone isn’t enough. Court filings on the settlement already exceed 200 pages, and dozens of formal objections have been submitted.
Walmart’s legal team argues that a hearing would help clarify the real impact of the agreement and ensure that major merchants — not just a handful of small businesses listed as named plaintiffs — get their voices heard.
Trade associations echoed the concern, saying they were largely excluded from negotiations and deserve a chance to explain how the settlement could affect retailers nationwide.
They also noted that an earlier version of the settlement was rejected in 2024 after oral arguments before another judge, suggesting that a similar process is warranted now.
Separate Dispute Over Legal Conduct
At the same time, attorneys representing the merchant class have asked the court to sanction Tennessee-based firm Betz & Baril and referral partner ClickFunds LLC.
According to the motion, the firms misled merchants while signing them up for settlement claims, including making inaccurate statements about potential payouts. Class counsel is asking the court to block them from receiving fees tied to those clients and require them to notify merchants about the sanctions request.
The accused firm has until late February to respond.
High Stakes for Retailers and Consumers
The outcome of this settlement could reshape how card fees are set across the U.S. economy. Interchange costs are baked into prices for everything from groceries to gas, meaning even small changes can ripple through consumer spending.
Retailers argue the deal must deliver meaningful relief — not symbolic adjustments — before it becomes binding on what could be the largest class of merchants ever included in a settlement.
For now, they want their day in court before the judge makes the call.