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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis will mark the 80th anniversary of Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law with a live podcast exploring the evolution of aviation law from the Chicago Convention to the challenges facing modern aerospace, taking place on Tuesday 29 September
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Indemnity costs remain exceptional, but parties cannot ignore a case that deteriorates around them. In Lawrence v Associated Newspapers, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay indemnity costs after finding their conduct, viewed cumulatively, fell ‘well outside the norm’
Public law is in flux following reversals and robust appellate intervention, according to the latest public law update by the team at HSFK for NLJ
Neurotechnology is turning the human mind into an operational domain, exposing gaps in the laws of war
back-to-top-scroll