Nonstop Trends and Wins

What are some of the ramifications of the recent court ruling regarding the settlement between Visa,  Mastercard, and merchants allowing stores to reject credit cards with higher transaction fees?

The ruling approving the revised Visa–Mastercard settlement is a significant shift in how credit cards compete at the point of sale. The ruling allows merchants to reject certain high‑fee cards and to steer customers toward cheaper payment options. Over time, this is expected to put pressure on premium rewards cards, interchange revenues, and perhaps even consumer prices, though many large retailers say the changes do not go far enough to fix the real issue, which is the underlying fee structure.

This settlement lowers average credit‑card interchange fees for five years, from levels that averaged 2–2.5% in 2024. Standard consumer credit cards face a cap of around 1.25% for eight years, a reduction of more than 25% relative to prior averages.

Merchants gain the ability to decline high‑cost card categories—such as certain rewards and commercial cards—rather than being forced by the “honor all cards” rules to accept every card on a network at whatever fee is attached.

This settlement clarifies and expands merchants’ rights to surcharge costlier cards (often up to about 3%), and card issuers must clearly label card types so cashiers and customers can distinguish high‑fee products at checkout.

For many merchants, especially smaller ones, cost control becomes more flexible: they can refuse the most expensive card types or add surcharges rather than silently absorbing rising interchange rates. However, merchant coalitions argue the fee cuts are too small and too temporary, warning that networks can still adjust categories and pricing in ways that preserves much of the old economics. Large chains like Walmart have told the court that, in practice, rejecting premium cards is hard when so many customers rely on them, so the theoretical flexibility may be limited in day‑to‑day retail.

Customers will see more transparent price differentiation: some stores may add surcharges for premium or rewards cards or offer discounts for debit, cash, or basic credit products. That could encourage cost‑conscious shoppers to carry lower‑fee cards and might nudge behavior away from high‑rewards, high‑interchange products – yet to be determined. Over several years, card issuers may respond by trimming rewards, tightening underwriting, or adding annual fees to preserve profitability.

Visa and Mastercard avoided an outright loss at trial and are keeping the core network model—central posting of default interchange and wide issuer participation—intact. Their filings emphasize “sweeping concessions,” but they retain the ability to re‑optimize fee schedules within the settlement’s caps and time limits.

Issuers that rely heavily on premium rewards portfolios may see pressure on interchange revenue as merchants steer away from the highest‑fee categories or surcharge them, potentially making those cards less attractive. Over time, that could slow the arms race in ever‑richer rewards and shift competition toward lower‑cost, more transparent products.

The case underscores growing regulatory and political scrutiny of interchange and network rules, complementing legislative efforts like the proposed Credit Card Competition Act that would mandate more routing choices on some cards. If this settlement is perceived as inadequate, it might strengthen arguments for direct regulatory caps or structural reforms to card network pricing.

Strategically and interestingly, the settlement may also accelerate alternative payment models—such as account‑to‑account transfers or real‑time payments—that promise lower merchant costs and fewer rules like “honor all cards.” Whether these alternatives gain meaningful share will depend on how aggressively merchants use their new rights and how visible the changes become to everyday shoppers at the point of sale. So, we will have to wait and see.