Visa 2015 Annual Report Download - page 141

VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2015
Data Pass Litigation
On November 19, 2010, a consumer filed an amended class action complaint against
Webloyalty.com, Inc., Gamestop Corporation, and Visa Inc. in Connecticut federal district court,
seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on the grounds that consumers who made online
purchases at merchants were allegedly deceived into incurring charges for services from
Webloyalty.com through the unauthorized passing of cardholder account information during the sales
transaction (“data pass”), in violation of federal and state consumer protection statutes and common
law. On October 15, 2015, the court dismissed the case in its entirety, without leave to replead. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2015.
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 purported 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 challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October
2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, MasterCard and three financial institutions as defendants.
These putative class actions seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees
where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
consumer protection statutes.
On February 13, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed all of
these cases without prejudice, and later denied plaintiffs’ motions for leave to amend and to alter the
court’s judgment. On plaintiffs’ appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated the lower court’s decisions and remanded for further proceedings. On September 3, 2015,
defendants filed a petition seeking panel rehearing or rehearing en banc before the appellate court,
which was denied on September 28, 2015.
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 is cooperating with the Division in connection with the
CID.
128