MasterCard Consumer Claim
Merricks v Mastercard

This is the official website for the claim brought by Mr Walter Merricks CBE on behalf of a class of UK consumers against Mastercard. Mr Merricks represents the class and is referred to as the “Class Representative”. The claim was brought on a collective basis on behalf of approximately 44 million UK consumers and is called “Collective Proceedings”. The Collective Proceedings were filed in 2016. Initially the application to commence the Collective Proceedings was rejected at first instance by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), but Mr Merricks successfully appealed before the Court of Appeal, and on a further appeal by Mastercard to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mr Merricks’ favour. A collective proceedings order was finally granted on 18 May 2022 allowing the Collective Proceedings to proceed. Following numerous hearings, in which witness evidence was heard, Mr Merricks and Mastercard settled out of court for £200 million (the “Settlement Sum”) without any admission of liability by Mastercard (the “Settlement”). The Settlement was approved by the Tribunal orally in a hearing held from 19 to 21 February 2025, and on 20 May 2025 the Tribunal published its judgment approving the settlement. On 31 October 2025, the Tribunal published both its ruling on the costs matters related to the settlement approval and the “Collective Settlement Approval Order” which sets out the Tribunal’s directions approving the Settlement, how the Settlement Sum is to be distributed to class members and other stakeholders, how notice is to be given to class members, and how costs are to be assessed and paid.

To view the documents filed in the claim, the settlement agreement and the judgment approving the Settlement, click here.

The claim (Collective Proceedings) was brought against Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated, and Mastercard Europe S.A. (formerly Mastercard Europe S.P.R.L.). Together, these entities are called "Mastercard".

The claim was about small card processing fees – known as interchange fees – that are charged by card networks for payment technology and services that allow your money to get to the retailer’s bank whenever you pay for goods and services using a credit or debit card. Mr Merricks argued that these fees were too high, and that retailers passed on those inflated interchange fees to all consumers through higher prices for goods and services, regardless whether the consumer paid with a Mastercard card, cash or cheques.

The claim followed on from a decision by the European Commission on 19 December 2007 (“EC Decision”). The European Commission decided that Mastercard had imposed unlawful interchange fees on intra-EEA transactions processed through its network from 1992 until 2007. The EC Decision also stated that consumers are likely to have paid higher prices for goods and services because businesses raised retail prices as a result of Mastercard’s unlawful fees.

The claim sought to include purchases made by individuals from businesses selling in the UK between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2008 (the period covered by the EC Decision plus the six months period that Mastercard was given to comply), as well as for a “run-off period” until 21 June 2010, during which Mr Merricks alleged that prices to consumers remained elevated.

The collective proceedings order authorised Mr Walter Merricks CBE to act as the class representative.

As the class representative, Mr Merricks conducted the claim against Mastercard on behalf of all class members. Mr Merricks instructed the lawyers and experts, made decisions on the conduct of the claim, and, in particular, decided whether to settle the claim with Mastercard and apply to the Tribunal for its approval. Mr Merricks has communicated with the class throughout, providing updates about the Collective Proceedings by issuing formal notices on the claim website, and through engagement with all forms of media. Although the claim has settled, Mr Merricks will continue to update the class on the claim website, and through the media, about how eligible class members can claim a share of the settlement.

Mr Merricks has had a long and distinguished career defending consumer interests and holding large financial firms to account for their conduct. Mr Merricks is a qualified lawyer and the former Chief Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service, a position he held for 10 years.

The Collective Settlement Approval Order made on 31 October 2025 formally brings the Collective Proceedings to an end, except for the purposes of dealing with outstanding costs matters, facilitating eligible class members to make a claim for their share of the Settlement Sum and distributing the Settlement Sum. Whilst the claim has concluded and is settled, the claim process has been delayed by the litigation funder, which following its unsuccessful attempt to oppose the Settlement, continues to seek to advance its commercial position over that of the class and so is now challenging the Tribunal’s decisions as to how the Settlement Sum is to be distributed, by way of a judicial review.

The Tribunal is a specialist court based in London that hears competition law disputes, including collective actions, in respect of the whole of the UK. The Tribunal publishes its Rules and Guidance, together with information about what it does, on its website.

A collective settlement is an agreement by the parties in collective proceedings to bring the proceedings to an end. The parties (the class representative and defendant) can settle collective proceedings but the settlement must be approved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal can only approve a collective settlement (a “Collective Settlement Approval Order”) if it is satisfied that the terms of the proposed collective settlement are “just and reasonable”.

The Settlement was approved orally by the Tribunal at a hearing that was held on 19 to 21 February 2025. At this hearing, the Tribunal concluded that it had “no doubt that the settlement at £200 million was just and reasonable”. The written judgment approving the settlement was handed down on 20 May 2025. The judgment sets out in detail the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision and how the settlement sum is to be distributed to eligible class members, how much of it needs to be used to reimburse the costs of bringing the claim, and when and to which charity any remainder should be paid. You can read the full judgment here.

On 31 October 2025, the Tribunal published the Collective Settlement Approval Order setting out its reasons for approving the Settlement and on how the Settlement Sum is to be distributed. You can read the Collective Settlement Approval Order here. The noticing and distribution phase of the Collective Proceedings have been stayed by the Collective Settlement Approval Order pending the outcome of the judicial review of the Tribunal’s decisions as to how the Settlement Sum is to be distributed.

You are a Represented Person and are eligible to make a claim from the Settlement Sum if you satisfy one of the following:

1. you lived in the UK on 6 September 2016 and:
   1. lived in either:
      1. Scotland for a continuous period of at least 3 months between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2008, and were aged 16 years or over during that time; or
      2. England, Wales or Northern Ireland for a continuous period of at least 3 months between 20 June 1997 and 21 June 2008, and were aged 16 years or over during that time; and
   2. purchased goods and/or services from businesses in the UK that accepted Mastercard credit cards during the period between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2010 (if you lived in Scotland) or 20 June 1997 and 21 June 2010 (if you lived elsewhere in the UK); and
   3. previously did not opt out of the Collective Proceedings between December 2022 and March 2023;

   OR

2. you did not live in the UK on 6 September 2016 and:
   1. otherwise satisfy the criteria set out at (i) to (ii) above; and
   2. previously opted in to the Collective Proceedings between December 2022 to March 2023.

You can also make a claim as a personal / authorised representative on behalf of a Represented Person who either:

• was alive on 6 September 2016, but subsequently died (individuals who died prior to 6 September 2016 are not included within the claim); or
• is mentally incapacitated.

Mr Merricks proposed that £100 million of the £200 million Settlement Sum be guaranteed to be available for distribution to Represented Persons who submit a valid claim for payment, and this was approved by the Tribunal in its judgment. Based on the number of Represented Persons who are estimated to submit a claim, our best estimate is that each Represented Person will receive around £45. However, that amount could be smaller or larger up to a maximum cap of £70, depending on the number of Represented Persons who come forward to make a claim.

For a full breakdown of how the Settlement Sum will be divided, see the FAQ ‘What are the three ‘pots’ that comprise the Settlement Sum?’ below or the Collective Settlement Approval Order here.

If you are a Represented Person, you will be able to make a claim for a share of the Settlement Sum on this website. The website will be updated on how to make a claim once the judicial review of the Tribunal’s decisions on how the Settlement Sum is to be distributed has been resolved.

The £100 million that will be distributed to Represented Persons is ring fenced in ‘pot 1’. Each Represented Person will receive from this pot a payment at the level of their pro rata share of the £100 million, up to a maximum of £70.

The remaining £100 million will be split between pots 2 and 3 as follows.

Pot 2 amounts to approximately £45.6 million and will be ring fenced for the litigation funder to reimburse it for the costs, fees and disbursements it paid to fund the claim, and anticipated future costs, fees and disbursements that it has already committed to pay to give notice of the Settlement and distribute the Settlement Sum. The reasonableness of some of these costs will be assessed by an independent costs expert, so the amount in pot 2 may be reduced to the extent the Tribunal decides a proportion of the relevant costs are unreasonable and cannot be recovered.

Pot 3 amounts to the remaining £100 million minus the amount allocated to pot 2, i.e. approximately £54.4 million. This amount may be more if the amount to be paid to the litigation funder out of pot 2 is smaller than anticipated, or it may be less if the amount to be paid to the litigation funder is larger than anticipated. Pot 3 will be distributed as follows:

1. First, the class representative shall be reimbursed for the reasonable costs and expenses that he has incurred and which have not been paid by the litigation funder, including any costs order in respect of the pass-on trial in the Merchant Interchange Fee Umbrella Proceedings (case no. 1517/11/7/22 (UM)).
2. Second, the litigation funder shall be paid a profit return that represents an uplift of 50% on the amount that is paid to the litigation funder in pot 2 above (estimated at circa. £68 million).
3. Third, if the number of Represented Persons who make a claim for payment would result in each receiving a pro rata share of less than £45 from pot 1, then a proportion of the remaining Settlement Sum, less any amounts paid out of pot 3 to the class representative or the litigation funder, shall be used to provide Represented Persons with a payment of £45 or as close as possible to £45.
4. Fourth, any amount that remains shall then be paid to The Access to Justice Foundation.

The Access to Justice Foundation is a registered UK charity (charity registration number 1126147) that provides financial and other support to persons who provide legal advice or assistance free of charge to persons in need. It does so by raising funds from a range of sources and making grants to beneficiaries. It is the charity prescribed to receive undistributed funds from opt-out collective proceedings, such as this claim.

The Settlement Sum of £200 million was approved by the Tribunal which considered this amount to be without doubt a fair and reasonable settlement in all the circumstances. It is substantially less than the billions that were initially claimed. This is because, as the facts of the case became known through many hearings over a number of years, and evidence from witnesses and experts, the true value of the claim became clearer.

The Settlement was challenged by the litigation funder, Innsworth Capital, which sought to argue that it should receive £179 million out of the £200 million Settlement Sum, and that UK consumers should be capped at receiving £4 each. The Tribunal comprehensively rejected all of those arguments. The Tribunal accepted Mr Merricks’ proposal that a minimum of £100 million should be ring fenced for Represented Persons, and that any remaining sum after other costs are paid should go to The Access to Justice Foundation.

Innsworth Capital, a litigation funder, provided the funds to bring the claim, including up to £15 million to pay Mastercard’s costs. The settlement covers all costs in the claim, and no class member was or will be liable to pay Mastercard’s costs.

The United Kingdom includes England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland for the purposes of this claim, and does not include any Crown Dependencies (Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the Isle of Man). So being resident in or buying goods or services in one of these dependencies does not count.

If you have questions about making a claim, opting in or out, or the Settlement more generally, you can contact the class representative by email at info@MastercardConsumerClaim.co.uk or post at Mastercard Consumer Claim, P.O. Box 1498, Sunderland, SR5 9UD.

A simple online claim form will be available on this website for you to make a claim when the claim period opens in due course.

This website will periodically be updated, so it is a good idea to check periodically for new information.

If you would like to register to keep up to date with the progress of the claim, click  here.

Whilst Mr Merricks is the class representative and runs this claim for consumers, he is not able to fund a claim of this size and public importance on his own. Therefore, Mr Merricks worked with third-party litigation funder, Innsworth Capital Limited, to bring the claim. The amount of funding made available was up to £60.1 million to pursue the claim through to the end, including a sum of up to £15 million in aggregate to cover Mastercard’s costs. The funding arrangements in place mean that class members did not need to pay anything to be part of the claim and had no financial risk in relation to the claim. Represented Persons also will not need to pay anything to make a claim for a share of the Settlement Sum.