Mastercard has lost an appeal meaning that millions of adults in the UK could be due a £300 ($395) payout in damages for excessive fees.
The Supreme Court ruled today (11 December) on a £14 billion ($18bn) claim brought by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, on behalf of about 46.2 million UK consumers.
Mastercard appealed the claim, but the appeal was dismissed, meaning almost every UK adult could be due a £300 payout.
Advert
To be eligible, you would need to be able to prove you were in the UK between 1992 and 2008. You don't even have to have had a Mastercard, since Merricks claims almost every customer who made a purchase in a shop that accepted Mastercard would have been affected.
Merricks said the fees the payment provider charged shops - which were declared unlawful by the European Commission - meant customers ended up paying inflated prices.
He states that Mastercard's breaches of competition law affected almost all purchases from businesses that accepted Mastercard between 1992 and 2008.
Advert
Merricks said: "Mastercard has been a sustained competition law breaker, imposing excessive card transaction charges over a prolonged period in a way it must have known would impose an invisible tax on UK consumers."
The lawyer once led the UK's industry regulator the Financial Ombudsman Service - an impartial, not-for-profit service that aims to resolve disputes between consumers and businesses.
He added that the prices of 'everything we all bought from 1992 to 2008 were higher than they should have been'.
Today, Mastercard disagreed with the court's decision.
Advert
A statement read: "We fundamentally disagree with this claim and know people have received valuable benefits from Mastercard's payments technology.
"No UK consumers have asked for this claim. It is being driven by 'hit and hope' US lawyers, backed by organisations primarily focused on making money for themselves.
"Mastercard will be asking the Competition Appeal Tribunal to avert the serious risk of the new collective action regime going down the wrong path with a case which is fundamentally flawed."
Samantha Silver, from international law firm Kennedys, said the ruling could 'open the floodgates'.
Advert
She said: "This landmark decision clarifies the test to be applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in certifying collective proceedings and indicates that the Tribunal has been too strict in the way they have previously approached these applications.
"This is likely to lead not only to this Collective Proceedings Order being certified by the CAT, but is also likely to set the tone for future group actions in England and Wales.
"The potential is now here for the floodgates to be opened to further group actions. Claimant groups and litigation funders across the country are likely to start amassing arms to exploit this change in direction."
Featured Image Credit: PA