header-logo header-logo

Merricks sets precedent as mammoth Mastercard case closes

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

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll