Latest Updates
On 3 December 2024, Walter Merricks (the Class Representative) reached a settlement agreement with Mastercard in which Mastercard agreed to pay £200 million (the “Settlement Sum”) to the Class Representative to distribute to members of the class (referred to as “Represented Persons”). Mastercard agreed to the settlement without any admission of liability. A settlement of collective proceedings requires the approval of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) who will only approve the settlement if it considers it to be “just and reasonable” and in the best interests of the class. Mr Merricks and Mastercard filed a joint application with the Tribunal asking it to approve the settlement on 17 January 2025.
The Tribunal considered the settlement at a hearing that took place from 19 to 21 February 2025. Represented Persons were entitled to make written / oral submissions to the Tribunal on the settlement terms, but no Represented Persons chose to do so. Mr Merricks’ litigation funder was given permission by the Tribunal to intervene and to put forward its arguments in opposition to the settlement. Having heard all the arguments, the Tribunal approved the settlement, stating that “we have no doubt that the settlement at £200 million, on the terms proposed, is just and reasonable”.
On 20 May 2025, the Tribunal handed down its written judgment (here) which will now allow the millions of UK consumers who are part of the class to come forward and claim their share of the £200 million, with individuals potentially getting between £45 and £70 each. UK consumers will be able to register to receive a payment by completing a simple online form regardless whether they ever held a Mastercard card. Official information on how to claim will be posted on this website in due course.
The Documents page contains the full non-confidential versions of the documents that were filed with the Tribunal on 17 January 2025, including: (i) the joint settlement application by Mr Merricks and Mastercard; (ii) the settlement agreement; and (iii) the witness statement of Mr Merricks setting out why he considers the settlement to be just and reasonable; and Mr Merricks’ evidence filed in response to the litigation funder’s statement of intervention.
On 10 June 2025, the litigation funder (Innsworth), filed an application for permission for judicial review of the Tribunal’s judgment in respect of how the £200 million settlement sum is to be distributed and how much the litigation funder should receive as a return (the application does not relate to the settlement itself, which is not being challenged). The Administrative Court will decide the application and this webpage will be updated with further information if permission is granted.
On 31 October 2025, the Tribunal handed down its ruling on costs issues and on the Collective Settlement Approval Order. The Tribunal ruled that the litigation funder is liable for costs it caused Walter Merricks CBE and Mastercard to incur as a result of its unsuccessful intervention and that it should not be reimbursed for these costs from the settlement sum. It also held that the litigation funder should not be reimbursed for costs it has expended funding the collective proceedings until its application to judicially review the Tribunal’s decisions on distribution and costs-related matters are resolved.
The Collective Settlement Approval Order was also made on 31 October 2025, which gives formal approval to the terms of the settlement, directs how Mr Merricks is to give notice of the settlement to the class, how the settlement sum is to be distributed to class members and other stakeholders, sets out how Mr Merricks’ and the litigation funder’s costs are to be assessed for reasonableness, and orders the costs the litigation funder must pay for its unsuccessful opposition to the settlement. The Tribunal’s directions entitling class members to claim their share of the settlement sum and on how the settlement sum is to be distributed have been stayed pending resolution of the litigation funder’s application for judicial review and determination by the Tribunal as to the costs that can be recovered by Mr Merricks and the litigation funder from the settlement sum.