Visa and Mastercard $167.5 Million ATM Fee Settlement Overcharged Surcharges

For years, many consumers who used nonbank ATMs have been hit with “surcharge” fees—charges imposed by the ATM owner, often on top of any amount charged by the cardholder’s bank. The underlying dispute in **Burke v. Visa/Mastercard** centers on allegations that Visa and Mastercard’s network rules limited how ATM operators could structure fees, effectively “blocking” operators from charging different (or “differential”) access prices. Plaintiffs claim those rules contributed to consumers being overcharged when surcharges were applied in ways that were not fully justified by competition or actual network access costs. The proposed **$167.5 million settlement** would split roughly **$88.775 million for Visa** and **$78.725 million for Mastercard**, with class periods covering **October 24, 2007 through the date of preliminary approval**; the litigation does **not** cover credit card transactions, cash advances, or prepaid cards. The lawsuit was filed as a class action to consolidate many similar claims into a single case and to challenge conduct plaintiffs say violated antitrust principles by restricting fee practices within the payments network. Its significance is twofold: it targets major card networks rather than only individual ATM owners, and it signals how courts may view network rulemaking when those rules affect everyday consumer costs. The broader implications echo other ATM-related settlements—such as prior Visa ATM surcharge litigation mentioned alongside this case—highlighting a recurring theme in digital payments: consumers may face multilayered charges, while regulators and industry bodies focus on transparency, competition, and fair fee allocation. In an industry shaped by U.S. payments oversight and network governance, these cases reflect ongoing scrutiny of how Visa/Mastercard policies interact with fee behavior at ATMs and the resulting consumer impact. If the settlement receives final approval, eligible class members would be able to submit a claim using a form available after preliminary approval (with the deadline expected to be roughly **180 days** later), and the settlement administration would likely provide payouts digitally or by check about **six months after final approval**. In other words, this is not just a one-time payment—it’s a window into how disputes over “small” per-transaction fees can scale into major antitrust litigation when network rules may influence how often and how much consumers pay at nonbank ATMs.