Visa 2012 Annual Report Download - page 113

Table of Contents VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2012
Visa's rule (and a similar MasterCard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus
transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks. The plaintiffs claim that the
rule prevents non-bank ATM operators from attracting customers through lower prices, allegedly in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The complaint requests injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and damages “in an amount not presently known, but which
is tens of millions of dollars, prior to trebling.”
On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint against the same defendants. Like the original
complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the ATM access fee rule prevents non-bank ATM operators from attracting
customers to use other networks in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The amended complaint also alleges that Visa's rule
has enabled Visa to charge artificially high network fees for ATM transactions, to compensate ATM operators inadequately, and to
compensate member banks excessively. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble damages.
Consumer class actions . In October 2011, three consumer class actions were filed against Visa and MasterCard in the same
federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. One case, Genese , adds three financial institutions as defendants. All
three cases purport to represent classes of consumers in claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Stoumbos adds
claims under antitrust and/or consumer protection statutes in certain states and the District of Columbia, and Bartron adds claims
on behalf of sub-classes of consumers under such state laws. The consumer suits seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble
damages; Bartron and Stoumbos also seek restitution where available under state law.
On December 1, 2011, the plaintiff in the Stoumbos case filed a corrected complaint asserting the same claims as in the
original complaint.
On January 10, 2012, the Bartron and Genese complaints were combined into a single amended complaint, now captioned
Mackmin . The amended complaint challenges the same ATM access fee rules and names Visa, MasterCard, and three financial
institutions as defendants, but the putative class representatives are different from those in the original Bartron and Genese
complaints. Mackmin purports to represent classes and sub-classes of consumers in claims brought under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and the antitrust and/or consumer protection statutes in certain states and the District of Columbia. The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, treble damages, and restitution where available under state law.
On January 30, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the defendant financial institutions filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the
National ATM Council class action and the consumer class actions. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held on September 5,
2012.
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand. On March 13, 2012, the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice (the “Division”) issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or “CID,” to Visa Inc. seeking documents and
information regarding a potential violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The CID focuses on PIN-
Authenticated Visa Debit and Visa's competitive responses to the Dodd-Frank Act, including Visa's Fixed Acquirer Network Fee.
Visa and its representatives have communicated and continue to communicate regularly with the Division and have provided
materials in response to the CID. Visa is continuing to provide materials and cooperate with the Division in connection with the CID.
Federal Trade Commission Voluntary Access Letter. On September 21, 2012, the Bureau of Competition of the United States
Federal Trade Commission (the “Bureau”) requested that Visa provide on a voluntary basis documents and information regarding
potential violations of certain regulations associated with the Dodd-Frank Act, particularly Section 920(b)(1)(B) of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693o-2, and Regulation II, 12 C.F.R. § 235.7(b) (commonly known as the “Durbin Amendment”
and
regulations). The request focuses on information related to the purposes, implementation, and impact of the optional PIN Debit
Gateway Service. The revenue generated by the PIN Debit Gateway Service is not material to the Company's financial statements.
Visa is cooperating with the Bureau and responding to its information requests.
Note 22—Subsequent Events
On October 19, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, various U.S. financial institution defendants and the class plaintiffs
110