The Wal-Mart Antitrust Action: How the 1996 Litigation Reshaped Payment Card Interchange

This article provides background on the landmark antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard that began in October 1996, when a group of retailers led by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., The Limited, Sears, Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores, Inc., and Safeway, Inc. filed suit against Visa U.S.A. Inc. and MasterCard International Incorporated. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the interchange fees on signature-based debit transactions and illegally tied their debit products to their credit card networks. By December 1996, the cases were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and the court appointed Constantine & Partners (now Constantine Cannon) as lead counsel and Hagens Berman LLP as co-lead counsel. What followed was one of the most consequential antitrust class actions in retail history—a fight that ultimately forced sweeping reforms to the payment card industry and delivered billions in monetary and injunctive relief to merchants.

Even after the historic settlement and subsequent rulings, merchants continue navigating the current landscape of swipe fees. The MDL (In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1293) set a precedent for how interchange litigation is handled. Today, we help merchants understand their rights under the settlement, the status of ongoing litigation, and how to claim their share of available compensation. If you accepted Visa or MasterCard debit cards between 1992 and 2003, you may still have unclaimed funds—learn if you qualify for a payment from the settlement trust.

Hagens Berman and Constantine Cannon: The Legal Strategy Behind the MDL

The court’s designation of Constantine & Partners and Hagens Berman as lead and co-lead counsel was critical. These firms orchestrated a mass tort–style consolidation of claims from thousands of retailers, including both large chains and independent merchants like Auto-Lab of Farmington Hills and The Coffee Stop, Inc. The plaintiff class was certified to include all U.S. merchants that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit cards and paid interchange fees during the class period. The case became known as the “Wal-Mart action” because of the lead plaintiff’s size, but it represented the entire class.

The legal strategy focused on two anticompetitive practices: (1) the “Honor All Cards” rule, which forced merchants to accept all Visa or MasterCard products if they accepted any, and (2) the fixing of debit interchange fees at artificially high levels. In 2003, after years of discovery and motion practice, the defendants agreed to a settlement valued at over $3.4 billion, along with changes to their network rules. The settlement was one of the largest antitrust class action settlements in U.S. history. However, even after the settlement, litigation continued over the allocation of funds and the implementation of injunctive relief.

“The consolidation of these actions in December 1996 allowed the court to manage a sprawling antitrust dispute efficiently. The appointment of Constantine & Partners and Hagens Berman ensured that the interests of the merchant class—from Wal-Mart to a single Denture Specialists, Inc.—were vigorously represented.”
— Excerpt from the court’s consolidation order. For the full procedural history, see the case history page and the archived version on the Wayback Machine.

Named Plaintiffs and Their Role in the Interchange Fee Litigation

The court-certified class was represented by 17 named plaintiffs, including major retailers and small businesses. The table below lists some of the key plaintiffs and the industries they represent:

These plaintiffs demonstrated that the anticompetitive conduct harmed merchants of all sizes, from multinational chains to single-location dental practices. The inclusion of pharmacies (Safeway) subject to FDA regulations—where interchange fees directly affected the price of prescription drugs—highlighted the broad economic adverse event caused by inflated swipe fees on debit transactions.

Your Rights and Next Steps as a Merchant

If you are a merchant who accepted Visa or MasterCard debit cards between 1992 and 2003, you may be entitled to a share of the remaining settlement funds. The statute of limitations for individual claims has long passed, but the settlement trust continues to distribute funds to merchants who can provide proof of their transaction volume. Here are the steps we recommend:

• Gather your business records from the class period—bank statements, processing statements, and tax returns that show your Visa/MasterCard debit card acceptance.
• Check whether you already filed a claim in the original settlement (2003–2005). Many merchants missed the first distribution and can still submit late claims if the trust has remaining funds.
• Contact our team for a free eligibility assessment. We will verify your merchant category code (MCC) and transaction data against the settlement parameters.
• If you are a current merchant still paying interchange fees, discuss with us the possibility of joining ongoing mass tort litigation challenging network rules that persist in the post-settlement era.

The settlement provided not only monetary relief but also required Visa and MasterCard to modify rules that tied debit products to credit networks—changes that still benefit merchants today. However, new litigation continues as some practices have evolved. Understanding the history of this MDL is the first step toward ensuring you receive the compensation you deserve.

Don’t leave money on the table. Contact us to learn if you qualify for a distribution from the In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation settlement trust. Our team at inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com has been tracking this case for decades and can help you navigate the claims process.