×
72 691
Fashion Jobs
PRANA
Director, Strategic Accounts & Sales Business Development
Permanent · CARLSBAD
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Part Time - Bridgewater
Permanent · BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Part Time - Roosevelt Field
Permanent · GARDEN CITY
DECKERS
Business Systems Analyst - Plm
Permanent · GOLETA
BANANA REPUBLIC
General Manager - Tampa Premium Outlets
Permanent · LUTZ
CROCS
Crocs: sr. HR Systems Manager
Permanent · REMOTE
NORDSTROM
Asset Protection - Agent - Oakridge Rack
Permanent · San Jose
KOHLS
Full-Time Sales Supervisor - Softlines
Permanent · Forest Park
KOHLS
Full-Time Sales Supervisor - Hardlines
Permanent · Schaumburg
NIKE
Consumer Planner, Global Sports Apparel
Permanent · Beaverton
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Manager, Sales - Luxury Textiles And Corporate Services
Permanent · New York
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Outlet Associate, Part Time - Dolphin Mall
Permanent · Miami
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Part Time - Soho
Permanent · New York
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Part Time - Palm Beach Garden
Permanent · Palm Beach Gardens
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Part Time - Norwalk
Permanent · Norwalk
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Detective, Part Time - ny 59th st
Permanent · New York
MACY'S
Asset Protection Captain, Santa Maria Town Center - Full Time
Permanent · Santa Maria
MACY'S
Asset Protection Detective, Arden Fair - Full Time
Permanent · Sacramento
MACY'S
Asset Protection Detective, Boston - Full Time
Permanent · Suffolk
MACY'S
Asset Protection Detective, West Dade Miami Int'l - Full Time
Permanent · Miami
MACY'S
Asset Protection Detective, State Street - Full Time
Permanent · Chicago
MACY'S
Asset Protection Detective, st Louis Galleria - Full Time
Permanent · Old Saint Louis
By
Reuters
Published
Jul 21, 2017
Reading time
2 minutes
Share
Download
Download the article
Print
Click here to print
Text size
aA+ aA-

Court blocks $18 billion British class action against MasterCard

By
Reuters
Published
Jul 21, 2017

A 14 billion pound ($18 billion) class action lawsuit against MasterCard for allegedly overcharging more than 45 million people in Britain over a 16-year period was blocked by a British court on Friday.


Courtesy Mastercard



The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), a newly-empowered court that oversees Britain's fledgling class action regime, ruled that it would not grant the necessary collective proceedings order for the case to proceed to trial.

Had it been allowed to proceed, the case would have been the largest and most complex in British legal history and would have tested the limits of the new Consumer Rights Act, which introduced U.S.-style "opt-out" collective class actions for breaches of UK or European Union competition law in 2015.
MasterCard welcomed the judgment, saying the claim was "completely unsuitable" to be brought under the collective action regime.

Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan launched the case on behalf of adults in Britain after MasterCard lost a drawn-out appeal against a 2007 European Commission decision that ruled its fees were anti-competitive.

The case centered on so-called interchange fees, the charges levied by credit and debit card companies such as Mastercard on merchants' banks, which card companies say cover the costs of operating card services, security and innovation.

It alleged these fees were a significant cost for retailers and were passed on through increased prices of goods and services to all UK consumers, including those who paid in cash and not just MasterCard holders.

London-based Walter Merricks, a lawyer who once led the Financial Ombudsman Service group that handles consumer disputes with banks and who is the representative named on the proposed action, said he was considering an appeal with his advisers.

"The new collective action regime was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act to overcome the difficulty for consumers seeking to recover losses from competition law infringements," he said. "I am concerned that this new regime, designed to benefit consumers, may never get off the ground."

He added that concerns cited by the tribunal, which included the difficulties in providing evidence that MasterCard fees were passed on to consumers and in precisely calculating individual losses for so many consumers, could have been overcome.

The planned lawsuit had been dubbed by one lawyer the "perfect exam question" for Britain's CAT, nominated in 2015 to oversees the country's maiden "opt-out" class action lawsuits in antitrust cases.
Under the regime, UK-based members of a defined group are automatically bound into legal action unless they opt out.

Critics say such regimes encourage claims without merit. But others argue they are designed to offer a more effective and economic route to compensation for UK-based consumers and businesses who fall victim to anti-competitive conduct and saves on hefty advertising costs to rally a large group together.

London's High Court ruled in January that MasterCard had charged interchange fees at a lawful level and without restricting competition in a similar dispute with retailers.

© Thomson Reuters 2023 All rights reserved.

Tags :
Industry