Visa, Mastercard, Major Banks Facing New Litigation over 'Anticompetitive' Fees

Commenters debated litigation against Visa, Mastercard and banks over merchant fees, with some arguing the payments middlemen add little value and should be a public service (Glyptodon, tyrabound). Others defended cards as reducing cash-handling costs and boosting consumer spending while criticizing the industry for institutionalizing fraud-protection costs that merchants end up paying (legitster). Several noted technical and legal nuances: tiffanyh pointed out acquirers set the Merchant Discount Rate and are often absent from suits; mahboi and trollbridge emphasized disputes and chargebacks as built-in escrow that merchants either resent or value; gadders warned class-action settlements often funnel money to lawyers or advocacy groups rather than claimants.

Opinion also split on causes and remedies. Some commenters blamed monopoly lock-in and regulatory capture for high fees and for payment processors enforcing censorship (yturijea, purplezooey), while others argued processors often act to comply with government demands and are entwined with state power (godwinson__4-8). Practical alternatives were proposed: jijji and others touted FedNow or Same Day ACH as lower-fee, instant rails that could bypass card networks. Skeptics asked whether breaking up networks would simply force merchants to accept cards bank-by-bank (criddell) or whether governments could be trusted to run complex, cross-border payment infrastructure (delusional, steve_adams_86).