header-logo header-logo

23 August 2021
Issue: 7946 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action
printer mail-detail

‘Massive’ Mastercard class action given the green light

Mastercard has lost its bid to stop a gigantic £15bn class action going ahead, in a landmark decision on opt-out claims
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which acts as gatekeeper on such actions, gave permission this month for the first opt-out collective action to proceed, in Merricks v Mastercard [2021] CAT 28.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regime (amending the Competition Act 1998), collective proceedings for anti-competitive conduct can be brought on an opt-out basis, which means anyone who falls within the definition of the class is automatically a member unless they explicitly withdraw. However, claims must first be certified by the CAT in the form of a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO).

Ruling in Merricks, Mr Justice Roth and two judges noted ‘the present proceedings are one of the first brought under this statutory regime and, by any measure, amount to a massive claim.

‘The original claim form stated that the class comprised some 46.2 million people, comprising, in effect, everyone who purchased goods or services in the UK when he or she was resident in the UK and over 16 years of age between 1992 and 2008. It should be emphasised that the damages are calculated on all purchases made by members of the class from outlets that accepted Mastercard and are not confined to purchases made using a Mastercard credit or debit card.

‘The aggregate damages were broadly estimated at around £14 billion, including a substantial element of interest given the time since the alleged loss had been suffered.’

The case concerns multi-lateral interchange fees (MIFs) charged for transactions using Mastercard cards, which may have have led to consumers paying higher prices for goods and services.

Boris Bronfentrinker, partner, Quinn Emanuel, representing the applicant, Walter Merricks, said: ‘The tribunal’s judgment marks an important landmark in both the timeline of Mr Merricks’ case, and also in the development of the CPO regime more generally, being the first CPO ever to have been granted.

‘It has been a long and winding journey that started back in 2016. It is very satisfying to know that Mastercard must now defend on the merits a claim of £15bn in the knowledge that it has a binding finding of infringement against it. 

‘We now look forward to securing what should be the largest damages award in English history for the class of some 46 million UK consumers and to holding Mastercard to account for its anticompetitive behaviour.’

Merricks, a solicitor and former Chief Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service, said: ‘The tribunal’s ruling heralds the start of an era of consumer-focused class actions which will help to hold big business to account in areas that really matter, which is an area I have spent much of my working life fighting for and something which I am proud to be a part of.’

Issue: 7946 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll