Visa 2014 Annual Report Download - page 140

VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2014
A similar case has been filed by merchants in Texas state court, generally pursuing claims on
allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. On September 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in that case filed
a motion for partial summary judgment regarding standing.
While the Company believes that it has substantial defenses in these matters, the final outcome of
individual legal claims is inherently unpredictable. The Company could incur judgments, enter into
settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome of individual opt-out claims, and such
developments could have a material adverse effect on our financial results in the period in which the
effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable.
Other Litigation
“Indirect Purchaser” Actions
From 2000 to 2004, complaints were filed on behalf of consumers in nineteen different states and
the District of Columbia against Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard (and, in California, Visa International).
The complaints allege, among other things, that Visa U.S.A.‘s “honor all cards” rule and a similar
MasterCard rule violated state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and common law. The claims in
these class actions asserted that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, passed on
some portion of those fees to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold.
Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive relief. Visa has been successful in the majority of these
cases, and has resolved the cases in all jurisdictions but California.
In California, in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the court dismissed claims
brought under the Cartwright Act, but denied a similar motion with respect to Unfair Competition Law
claims for unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices. The parties agreed to settlement terms
to resolve the dispute, which was granted final approval. The plaintiff in Attridge filed a notice of appeal
from the final approval order, as did other objectors to the settlement. An appeals court reversed the
judgment approving the settlement agreement, and the case was remanded to the trial court for
consideration of the fairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusion of the Attridge
claims in the release. The parties subsequently agreed upon a revised written settlement agreement,
which was granted final approval. An appeals court affirmed the judgment approving the revised written
settlement agreement, and certain objectors filed petitions for rehearing.
European Competition Proceedings
European Commission. On April 3, 2009, the European Commission (“EC”) issued a Statement of
Objections (“SO”) to Visa Europe, Visa International and Visa Inc. alleging a breach of European
competition law, namely Article 81 of the European Community Treaty and Article 53 of the European
Economic Area Agreement (the “EEA Agreement”). The SO was directed to Visa Inc. and Visa
International with respect to the “honor all cards” rule, the “no-surcharge” rule, and certain consumer
card interchange fee practices.
In 2010, Visa Europe announced an agreement with the EC to end the proceedings with respect to
Visa Europe’s debit interchange fees. The EC concluded that the proposed agreement with Visa
Europe addressed its competition concerns, made the agreement legally binding upon Visa Europe,
and closed its investigation with regard to interchange fees for consumer debit card transactions.
126