Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Sorry, But Your Credit Card (Class Action) Has Been Declined

April 2, 2018 by Carlton Fields

The Eastern District of New York recently declined to certify a putative class action filed by merchants against the four major credit card providers alleging antitrust violations. The complaint alleges that MasterCard, Visa, Discover, and American Express (“Amex”) conspired by adopting the same liability policy for fraudulent charges with chip-enabled credit cards by shifting liability from banks to merchants and implementing the policy on the same day to reduce competition. Plaintiffs moved to certify a damages class of merchants subjected to the liability shift beginning with the policies’ effective date and continuing “until the anticompetitive conduct ceases.” The court denied the motion, but based its decision on a technicality that can be corrected on a new motion.

The court’s analysis focused on two challenges to class certification: one raised by Amex regarding adequacy of class representation and another by all defendants regarding ascertainability.

First, Amex argued that plaintiffs’ attempt to hold all defendants jointly and severally liable failed because there were two groups of plaintiffs: (1) those merchants who accept Amex cards asserting joint and several liability against MasterCard, Visa, and Discover (but whose claims against Amex were severed and transferred to another court); and (2) those merchants who do not accept Amex cards asserting joint and several liability against all four credit card companies.  Amex contended the first group was overbroad by encompassing claims that could not be heard in the Eastern District of New York because of a forum selection clause. The court swiftly rejected this argument because Amex failed to cite any provision of its agreement (or legal authority) that prevented bringing claims based on joint and several liability against non-parties to the agreement outside of the selected forum. Amex also argued the second group’s representative merchant did not accept Amex and therefore could not adequately represent merchants that do. The court rejected this argument as well, holding that there was no “fundamental” conflict of interest between the two groups. The relevant claims depended on the “same finding of liability” against all defendants.

Second, all defendants contested certification on ascertainability grounds because the class definition identified the class period as continuing “until the anticompetitive conduct ceases.”  The court compared plaintiffs’ liability theory — but-for the conspiracy, each defendant would have set its own effective date for the liability shift — with the potential dates on which plaintiffs proposed to cap the class period. While “[a]ny” of the dates “could be acceptable to make the class ascertainable,” at this point in the litigation the plaintiffs “lack[ed] the necessary information” to satisfy the ascertainability requirement. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification but noted its authority to revisit or entertain a renewed motion.

B & R Supermarket, Inc. v. MasterCard Int’l Inc., Case No. 17-2738 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

District Courts Split on Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb‘s Specific Personal Jurisdiction Analysis Bars Nationwide Class Actions In Districts Beyond Defendant’s Home Venue

Next Article »

Student-Athletes Score Partial Win on Challenge to NCAA’s Scholarship Caps
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.