Visa 2014 Annual Report Download - page 143

VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2014
violation of federal and state consumer protection statutes and common law. Visa allegedly aided and
abetted the conduct of the other defendants. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of persons and
entities whose credit card or debit card data was improperly accessed by Webloyalty.com since
October 1, 2008, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Webloyalty.com, GameStop,
and Visa each filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted as to the
claims that are grounded in fraud. The court reserved decision on whether all of the claims in the
amended complaint are grounded in fraud, and granted plaintiff leave to file a further amended
complaint. On August 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint against the
same defendants as in the amended complaint, asserting the same claims.
Korean Fair Trade Commission
Following a complaint lodged by a Visa client, in July 2011 the Korean Fair Trade Commission
(“KFTC”) initiated an investigation into Visa’s requirements for the processing of international
transactions over VisaNet. The KFTC has the authority to issue an injunction or a fine. The potential
amount of any fine cannot be estimated at this time.
U.S. ATM Access Fee Litigation
National ATM Council Class Action. On October 12, 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen
non-bank ATM operators filed a class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa
U.S.A., and Plus System, Inc.) and MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint challenges 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. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and seek damages “in an amount not presently known, but which is tens of
millions of dollars, prior to trebling,” injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint against the same defendants, also asserting that the ATM access fee rule
violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs request treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’
fees.
Consumer Class Actions. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed against
Visa and MasterCard in the same federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. Two other
purported consumer class actions were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court, and were
later combined into a single amended complaint which challenges the same ATM access fee rules and
names Visa, MasterCard and three financial institutions as defendants. These consumer class actions
purport to represent classes and sub-classes of consumers in claims brought under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and also allege claims under antitrust and/or consumer protection statutes in certain
states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, treble damages,
and restitution where available under state law.
On February 13, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints in the
National ATM Council class action and the consumer class actions, and dismissed the cases without
prejudice. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia subsequently denied plaintiffs’ motions for
leave to file amended complaints in the National ATM Council class action and the consumer class
actions, and denied plaintiffs’ motions for an order altering or amending the court’s February 13, 2013
judgment. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
129