Visa and Mastercard agree to pay $167.5 million to settle long-running class action over ATM access fees

19 December 2025

Visa and Mastercard, two of the largest payment card networks in the world, have reached a proposed settlement to resolve a lengthy U.S. class-action lawsuit that accused them of conspiring to keep ATM access fees artificially high for consumers for nearly two decades. The deal, filed on December 18, 2025 in federal court in Washington, D.C., would see the companies jointly contribute $167.5 million to compensate people who paid unreimbursed access fees when withdrawing cash from independent, non-bank ATMs, with Visa putting up roughly $88.8 million of that sum and Mastercard contributing about $78.7 million. Both card networks have denied any wrongdoing, but the proposed settlement moves the case closer to resolution after years of litigation and returns funds to millions of ATM users.

The lawsuit at the center of this settlement, filed back in 2011, alleged that Visa and Mastercard’s network rules effectively constrained competition among ATM operators by preventing some independent machines from offering lower surcharge fees, a limitation that ultimately kept prices higher for consumers using cash machines outside of traditional bank networks. Plaintiffs argued that these rules had the effect of preserving inflated ATM access fees, in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The proposed settlement seeks to compensate eligible consumers with qualifying ATM transactions dating back to October 2007, a period that spans much of the growth of independent ATMs across the United States.

Under the terms of the agreement, the settlement fund created by Visa and Mastercard would be distributed to ATM users who were charged access fees that were not reimbursed by their financial institutions when withdrawing cash from non-bank automated teller machines. Once a judge gives preliminary approval to the deal, the settlement will enter a notification and claims period during which eligible people can file to receive a share of the fund. How much individual claimants receive will depend on the number of claims and the specifics of each person’s transaction records. Attorneys for the plaintiffs cited in court filings called the settlement “an excellent result in light of the risks of continued prosecution,” while they intend to request up to 30 percent of the settlement fund approximately $50 million to cover legal fees.

Visa and Mastercard’s agreement represents yet another chapter in a multi-part series of legal challenges tied to ATM fees. Just last year, the two companies agreed to pay $197.5 million to resolve similar claims from another class of users who said they’d been overcharged at bank-operated ATMs. In addition, several major banks settled related claims in 2021, agreeing to pay $66 million in that separate litigation. These cases have underscored ongoing scrutiny over how payment networks and financial institutions structure fees and the impact that those fees can have on both consumers and independent service providers.

While Visa and Mastercard have agreed to this settlement, they maintain they did not act unlawfully. In their responses to the claims, both companies have denied that their network rules were designed to fix prices or suppress competition, and they contend that their policies are lawful and appropriate for maintaining the integrity of complex payment systems. Nonetheless, the proposed settlement reflects a willingness to resolve years of contentious litigation and move past protracted court battles that have stretched over more than a decade.

Plaintiffs in the case argued that the alleged anti-competitive rules imposed by Visa and Mastercard blocked independent ATM operators from offering competitive surcharge fees, meaning consumers often had little choice but to pay higher fees for cash withdrawals. Independent machines are typically found in places such as convenience stores, airports, retail outlets and other locations outside traditional bank branches, and they often levy out-of-network fees that add to the cost of accessing cash. The lawsuit contends that rules governing how these fees were applied restricted market forces that might otherwise have driven prices down.

The proposed settlement still requires the approval of a federal judge before it can take effect. If approved, the case will proceed to a formal notice and claims administration phase during which notices will be sent to potential class members and a process will be established for submitting claims. The judge will review the fairness and adequacy of the settlement terms, including the proposed allocation of funds and the legal fees requested by class counsel, to ensure that the deal fairly compensates consumers without undue benefit to attorneys beyond the work performed.

Even with this proposed resolution, another lawsuit brought by independent ATM owners and operators remains ongoing in the same court, alleging related antitrust issues based on how network rules affect the economics of ATM operation. That case has not yet been settled, and its outcome could further influence how the payments industry structures fee arrangements and competitive practices going forward.

In addition to these class action suits, Visa is also confronting other legal challenges, including antitrust scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice, which has alleged that the company has monopolized parts of the debit card market. These broader cases reflect persistent tensions over how major payment networks’ rules and fee structures interact with competition law, consumer protection, and the balance of power between large financial firms and everyday users of payment services.

For millions of American consumers who have paid ATM access fees over the past 18 years, the proposed $167.5 million settlement offers the possibility of reimbursement and a reminder that fee practices long taken for granted can be subject to legal challenges and remedies. If the deal moves forward and is approved by the court, it will represent another step in an evolving landscape of financial litigation and consumer rights in the United States.