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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll