Nearly a thousand US retailers and trade groups have asked a federal judge to reject a proposed deal that would resolve a two-decade antitrust fight over Visa (NYSE:V) and Mastercard (NYSE:MA) swipe fees. The Merchant Payments Coalition said 978 businesses and associations filed objections with US District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn.
They want him to withhold final approval of a settlement that received preliminary clearing in June 2026.
The objectors include small shops, large chains, restaurants, grocers, convenience stores, and fuel retailers from every state, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
The companies argue the pact would give Visa, Mastercard, and major issuing banks broad protection from future lawsuits over fees and network rules.
In exchange, they say merchants would get only short-lived and limited relief filled with exceptions that would leave most of the current system intact.
They describe the agreement as the card industry’s third try at locking in its pricing model through the courts.
Two earlier versions were turned aside, first by an appeals court in 2016 and then by Judge Margo Brodie in 2024.
The underlying case, filed in 2005, accuses Visa and Mastercard of violating antitrust law by jointly setting interchange rates that banks charge merchants.
The networks control the large majority of the US card market.
Critics say that structure keeps fees high and prevents banks from competing on price.
Under the latest proposal, announced in November 2025, interchange rates paid to issuing banks would drop by one-tenth of a percentage point for five years.
Objectors call that cut tiny compared with the 2.36 percent average merchants paid in 2025.
They note it would merely restore rates to 2023 levels and would not restrain the separate network fees Visa and Mastercard collect for themselves.
Those network charges could rise and erase the modest savings.
The period during which merchants would be barred from new lawsuits is described as unclear and potentially far-reaching, covering not only existing claims but also future conduct.
Changes to the long-standing “honor all cards” rule would let merchants refuse high-cost premium or rewards cards and accept only standard cards.
Objectors say that option is largely theoretical because rewards cards account for more than 90 percent of credit-card spending.
Turning them away would mean turning away most customers.
A temporary 1.25 percent cap on standard consumer cards is likewise easy to evade, they argue, because those cards are a shrinking slice of the market and issuers could simply reclassify them.
A provision allowing merchants to add a surcharge of up to 3 percent is also criticized as impractical.
State laws and network rules vary widely, consumers often resent the extra charge, and the networks could impose higher fees on merchants who use it, canceling any benefit.
Swipe fees have risen sharply since the pandemic and now rank as many merchants’ second-largest operating cost after payroll.
The coalition says those costs are passed on to shoppers.
Objectors also note they had no real role in negotiating the deal, which they say was struck by the networks and a small group of class lawyers. Mastercard has said the agreement meets the court’s expectations and balances competing interests. A final decision from Judge Cogan is still pending at the time of writing.