Overview of the $167.5 Million ATM Settlement
Visa (V) and Mastercard (MA) have agreed to a $167.5 million class-action lawsuit settlement resolving allegations surrounding independent ATM surcharge fees. The litigation, officially titled Burke v. Visa Inc., addresses non-bank Automated Teller Machine (ATM) transactions conducted over a span of nearly two decades.
The lawsuit centers on independent ATMs typically located in non-bank establishments such as convenience stores, gas stations, grocery stores, hotels, and entertainment venues. These independent terminals often impose additional access fees or surcharges on cash withdrawals. Plaintiffs alleged that rules enforced by Visa and Mastercard stifled competition, preventing independent ATM operators from routing transactions through cheaper alternative card networks that could have offered consumers lower surcharge rates.
Understanding the Antitrust Allegations
Under standard banking infrastructure, when a cardholder initiates a debit or credit card cash withdrawal at an out-of-network ATM, multiple transaction routing networks are available. The legal complaint alleged that Visa and Mastercard established restrictive network rules prohibiting ATM operators from charging lower fees for transactions processed over competing, lower-cost card networks.
According to court filings, had ATM operators been permitted to utilize rival transaction networks without penalty, market competition would have driven down consumer access fees. Both Visa and Mastercard opted to settle the class-action litigation to avoid prolonged legal proceedings and potential trial liabilities, without admitting any wrongdoing or illegal conduct.
Eligibility Requirements for Cash Payouts
To qualify for a cash distribution from the settlement fund, claimants must meet specific criteria defined by the court:
- Eligible Transactions: ATM cash withdrawals using a Visa or Mastercard debit or credit card from a bank deposit account.
- ATM Type: Withdrawals must have occurred at an independent, non-bank ATM located in the United States (terminals not owned or operated by a financial institution).
- Fee Impact: The cardholder must have paid an out-of-pocket surcharge or access fee that was not fully reimbursed by their card-issuing bank.
- Timeframe: Eligible transactions must have taken place between October 24, 2007, and August 14, 2026.
In addition to nationwide class members, the settlement includes specific subclass provisions for affected consumers residing in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan.
Settlement Payout Calculations and Deadlines
The total settlement fund of $167.5 million will be used to pay court-approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, applicable taxes, and individual cash distributions to class members. The final monetary payout allocated to each claimant will depend directly on the total number of valid claims submitted across the eligible class.
Eligible consumers must submit a valid claim form online by February 10, 2027. Claim submissions, options to opt-out, or legal objections can be completed at the official settlement portal: www.nonbankatmsurchargesettlement.com. Disbursements will be processed following final court approval hearings scheduled for early 2027.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. How do I know if an ATM was an independent, non-bank terminal?
Independent ATMs are terminals operated by third-party companies rather than traditional banks or credit unions. They are commonly located in retail businesses such as gas stations, bars, bodegas, and hotels, and usually feature explicit surcharge disclosures prior to cash disbursement.
2. Will I need proof of transaction to file a claim?
Claimants will be required to provide personal identifying information and account details matching their card usage history during the claim filing process. The settlement administrator provides specific documentation requirements on the official portal.
3. When will eligible claimants receive their settlement funds?
Payments will be distributed after the court grants final approval to the settlement following the final fairness hearing in early 2027, assuming no appeals delay the process.
