Visa and Mastercard $167.5 Million ATM Fees Antitrust Settlement Claim Deadline

Visa and Mastercard operate card payment networks that, among other things, help determine how ATM cash withdrawals are processed. In the years before this settlement, some nonbank ATM owners alleged that Visa and Mastercard network “rules” prevented them from charging certain kinds of access fees—specifically differential or extra fees tied to card-network usage—placing pressure on ATM operators to accept a restricted fee structure and, in turn, contributing to higher or more opaque ATM surcharge practices for consumers. The class action, **Burke v. Visa Inc. (No. 1:11-cv-01882)**, seeks to address those alleged antitrust harms during the class period **(Oct. 24, 2007 through the date of preliminary approval)**, with a proposed settlement fund of **$167.5 million** split between **Visa ($88.775 million)** and **Mastercard ($78.725 million)**. The claim process is expected to open only after preliminary approval, with a notice and an online portal (planned as **NonbankATMSurchargeSettlement.com**) identifying who qualifies and setting a filing deadline roughly **about 180 days after preliminary approval**. The lawsuit was filed to challenge whether Visa and Mastercard’s rules unlawfully restrained competition in the ATM surcharge market, and it matters because it’s part of a broader pattern of litigation over how payment networks affect fees paid during cash withdrawals. If you qualify—generally for consumers who incurred certain types of **ATM surcharge** (and notably, the settlement does **not** cover credit card transactions, cash advances, or foreign-issued/prepaid card scenarios)—filing by the deadline can translate to potential payout from the settlement fund. Similar cases have been pursued before (including other ATM-fee antitrust settlements tied to network practices), and the regulatory context is the **U.S. antitrust framework** that governs restraints of trade under the **Sherman Act**, alongside ongoing oversight by regulators and enforcement activity affecting card-network fee structures and how merchants and ATM operators participate in payment ecosystems. These settlements also reflect the tight interplay between consumer costs, payment-network rulebooks, and ATM operator economics: even small rule changes at the network level can ripple into the fees displayed at ATMs and the bargaining power between networks, banks, and nonbank ATM owners. In practical terms, claim deadlines and eligibility boundaries—such as excluding unrelated payment types—are crucial because the settlement is designed to compensate only for the specific conduct alleged in the case. As the proposed settlement moves toward final approval, the next step for eligible class members is to submit the claim form through the administrator’s website within the stated window, where the court-approved process will determine whether a claim can be paid from the $167.5 million fund for the alleged ATM surcharge antitrust conduct.