header-logo header-logo

21 May 2025
Issue: 8118 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions
printer mail-detail

Merricks sets precedent as mammoth Mastercard case closes

UK consumers will receive between £45 and £70 each from the £200m Mastercard class action settlement

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) approved the settlement this week, in Merricks v Mastercard and others [2025] CAT 28. Eligible consumers—individuals who lived in Britain and bought goods or services from UK business that accepted Mastercard credit cards within the specified time period—will have until the end of 2025 to claim by filling out a form at mastercardconsumerclaim.co.uk. The claims process is being handled by Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions.

£100m of the settlement has been ringfenced for compensation, with unclaimed money going to the Access for Justice Foundation. Of the other £100m, £45, 567,946.28 has been ringfenced as the minimum return for funder Innsworth Capital.

Innsworth Capital challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing it should receive £179m with consumers receiving £4 each. However, this was rejected by the CAT.

Merricks’ original claim was for £14bn. Merricks, who was represented in the action by Boris Bronfentrinker of Willkie Farr & Gallagher (UK), said: ‘I started this case because I believed that Mastercard’s fees paid by retailers for processing card transactions had been unlawfully high and virtually all UK consumers had lost out for long by periods paying higher prices than they should have done as retailers passed on those costs.

‘As the evidence came to be known through the litigation process, this was the position only in a relatively small proportion of transactions and the settlement reflects that. During the long course of the case which involved winning a key Supreme Court decision, I have established important precedents to ensure that other collective actions that have followed mine, will have a greater prospect of succeeding.’

Merricks paid tribute to his legal opponent Mastercard for making £10m available to protect him from potential costs after Innsworth challenged the settlement.


Issue: 8118 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions
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