Judge Rules Against Sanctioning Law Firm in Visa, Mastercard Settlement

A federal magistrate judge ruled Saturday (July 13) that plaintiffs law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman would not be sanctioned at this time for submitting fake claims in an antitrust settlement with Visa and Mastercard.

In his ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Marutollo said punishing the firm was “unnecessary at this time” and that he reserves the right to issue sanctions after further investigation, Reuters reported Monday (July 15).

The law firm said it submitted the fake claims unknowingly, that a third-party referral source provided the fake claims and that the law firm will do a better job of screening would-be applicants’ in the future, according to the report.

The firm also said it would cover the cost of the time a claims administrator spent on the 115 fake claims by paying $25,000, per the report.

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman did not immediately reply to PYMNTS’ request for comment.

The class attorneys at two other plaintiffs’ firms had asked the court to consider sanctions against Milberg, according to the report.

This issue stems from the $5.6 billion antitrust settlement that Visa and Mastercard agreed to in 2018 to resolve merchants’ claims that they had overpaid credit and debit card fees, the report said. The two companies denied any wrongdoing.

Milberg, which did not help craft that settlement, was seeking part of the fund on behalf of some class members, per the report.

The settlement of the class-action lawsuit was approved in March 2023 after 15 years of litigation.

The plaintiffs — 12 million merchants — alleged that Visa and Mastercard had injured them by charging supracompetitive fees on payment card transactions.

The settlement resolves the retailers’ claims that the payment card networks overcharged them on interchange fees and barred them from steering their customers toward other payment methods that did not charge fees.

In November 2023, a federal judge agreed to investigate a website that lawyers argued was presenting false and misleading information about the $5.6 billion settlement.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys said that what they called a “highly suspicious” website closely resembled one that the court had authorized for class members.