People who paid an access fee to withdraw cash at certain independently owned, non-bank ATMs may now file claims in a proposed $167.5 million class action settlement with Visa and Mastercard. The settlement covers qualifying U.S. transactions from October 24, 2007 through August 14, 2026, but only when the customer paid an ATM surcharge and was not fully reimbursed by their bank.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary approval on August 14, 2026. That means the judge authorized notice and the claims process; it does not mean the settlement is final. Claims must be submitted online or mailed by February 10, 2027. Visa and Mastercard deny wrongdoing, and payments will not be distributed unless the settlement becomes final and any appeals are resolved.
Key facts
- Case: Peter Burke, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01882 (RJL-MAU)
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- Settlement amount: $167.5 million gross settlement fund
- Who may be included: People in the United States who paid a surcharge for a qualifying domestic cash withdrawal at an independent ATM between October 24, 2007 and August 14, 2026 and were not fully reimbursed by their bank
- Potential benefit: A pro-rata cash payment from the net settlement fund; the final amount is not yet known
- Claim deadline: February 10, 2027
- Exclusion and objection deadline: December 11, 2026
- Final approval hearing: February 17, 2027
- Current status: Preliminarily approved; the settlement is not yet final
In this article
- What the settlement is about
- Who Visa and Mastercard are
- How independent ATM transactions work
- Who may be included
- How settlement payments will be calculated
- What the lawsuit alleges
- What Visa and Mastercard dispute
- Case timeline and current status
- How to file a claim and protect your rights
- What remains undecided
- Frequently asked questions
What the settlement is about
The lawsuit concerns the surcharge displayed to a customer before a cash withdrawal at an independently owned ATM. The plaintiffs allege that rules associated with Visa and Mastercard networks prevented independent ATM operators from offering a lower surcharge when a transaction could be routed over a competing network.
The theory is an antitrust theory. Antitrust laws are intended to protect competition. The plaintiffs contend that the challenged rules restrained price competition by creating a floor under ATM access fees, which allegedly prevented operators from discounting transactions routed through other networks. Visa and Mastercard deny those allegations and deny liability.
The settlement agreement would resolve the covered claims against the Visa and Mastercard defendants in exchange for the settlement fund and related relief. A settlement is a compromise; it is not a court finding that either company violated the law.
A claim is available, but payment is not guaranteed The court has authorized the claims process, not finally approved the settlement. A valid claim may share in the net fund only if the settlement becomes final and survives any appeals.
Who Visa and Mastercard are
Visa and Mastercard operate global payment networks. Their networks help financial institutions, merchants, ATM operators and consumers exchange transaction information and move money. Consumers usually encounter the companies through payment cards carrying Visa or Mastercard branding, while banks and other financial institutions generally issue the cards and maintain the underlying customer accounts.
In this case, the relevant systems include Visa's Plus network and Mastercard's ATM-network operations. The complaint challenges network-related rules that allegedly affected whether independent ATM operators could vary the access fee charged to a cardholder depending on which available network processed the withdrawal.
The defendants named in the settlement include Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service Association, Plus System Inc., Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated and Mastercard Worldwide. The settlement materials group those related entities as the Visa defendants and Mastercard defendants.
How independent ATM transactions work
An automated teller machine, or ATM, lets a cardholder request cash from a deposit account. An independent ATM is not owned by a bank or other financial institution. Consumers commonly encounter independent machines in convenience stores, restaurants, entertainment venues and other retail locations.
When a cardholder uses one of these machines, the transaction may involve several participants: the ATM operator, the cardholder's bank, and one of the electronic networks available on the card and accepted by the machine. The ATM operator may charge an access fee, often called a surcharge, for completing the withdrawal. That fee is separate from any fee the customer's own bank may charge.
The filed complaint uses the term non-discrimination rule for the challenged network restrictions. In this dispute, that phrase refers to alleged rules preventing an ATM operator from charging a lower access fee for a transaction routed through a competing network than it charged for a Visa- or Mastercard-network transaction. The plaintiffs say those restrictions reduced operators' ability to compete on price. The defendants dispute the claims.
Who may be included
The court-approved settlement class generally covers individuals in the United States who, from October 24, 2007 through August 14, 2026, paid an access fee for a qualifying domestic cash withdrawal at an independent ATM and were not fully reimbursed for that fee by their bank.
The settlement definition is narrower than every ATM use. The covered transaction must be a cash withdrawal from a deposit account using an ATM card or PIN-debit card at an independent ATM in the United States. The definition excludes credit-card transactions, cash advances and prepaid-card transactions.
A consumer whose bank reimbursed the entire surcharge does not fit the reported class definition. A person who paid only a fee charged by their own bank should not assume that fee is covered, because the settlement concerns the access fee assessed by the independent ATM operator.
The fee and the machine both matter Coverage is tied to an ATM-operator surcharge at an independently owned machine. Bank-owned ATMs, fully reimbursed surcharges, cash advances, credit-card withdrawals and prepaid-card transactions are outside the reported definition.
How settlement payments will be calculated
The defendants agreed to create a gross settlement fund of $167.5 million. That amount is not divided equally among everyone who may belong to the class. Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement-administration costs, taxes, and any approved service awards will be deducted before payments are calculated.
The remaining amount is the net settlement fund. Under the settlement structure, eligible claimants who submit valid, timely claims will receive pro-rata payments. “Pro rata” means each approved claim receives a share under the court-approved allocation method rather than a fixed amount promised in advance. The agreement and notice process contemplate allocation based on approved transactions.
The final payment cannot be known until the administrator determines how many valid claims and covered transactions are approved and the court resolves the requested deductions. A headline estimate or an unofficial calculator cannot guarantee what any claimant will receive.
No fixed cash amount has been promised The $167.5 million figure is the gross fund. Individual payments depend on approved claims, covered transactions, deductions and the final allocation.
What the lawsuit alleges
The plaintiffs allege that Visa and Mastercard participated in an unlawful restraint of trade involving access fees at independent ATMs. According to the fourth amended complaint, the challenged rules required an operator that imposed an access fee to avoid charging less for transactions processed through other shared networks.
The complaint says competing networks could carry different network costs and interchange economics for ATM operators. Plaintiffs allege that operators otherwise might have offered customers lower access fees for transactions routed over rival networks. By allegedly preventing those discounts, the rules are claimed to have maintained higher consumer surcharges and limited competition among ATM networks.
The claims invoke Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and certain state antitrust, restraint-of-trade, consumer-protection and unfair-competition laws. Section 1 generally addresses agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. Whether a particular rule violates that law depends on the evidence and the applicable legal analysis; filing a complaint does not establish a violation.
What Visa and Mastercard dispute
The settlement agreement states that Visa and Mastercard deny the plaintiffs' claims and deny liability arising from the alleged conduct. They also state that the agreement and settlement negotiations should not be treated as an admission or evidence of wrongdoing.
The companies agreed to settle to avoid the cost, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continuing complex litigation. That is a common reason parties resolve a civil case without asking a court or jury to decide every disputed issue.
Case timeline and current status
The case has been pending since 2011. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint in June 2019. The court certified litigation classes in August 2021, with an amended order following in September 2021. Class certification means the court allowed specified claims to proceed on a representative basis; it did not decide the merits.
The settlement agreement is dated August 22, 2025. After further court proceedings, the judge entered the preliminary approval order on August 14, 2026. That order approved the notice plan, authorized the settlement website and claim process, and scheduled the fairness hearing.
The case is now in the notice-and-claims stage. The court will consider final approval after class members have had an opportunity to file claims, exclude themselves, object or otherwise respond as permitted by the order.
The next court milestone is final approval The February 17, 2027 hearing is when the court is scheduled to consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The judge may change the hearing schedule, so class members should check the official site.
How to file a claim and protect your rights
The court-authorized website is NonBankATMSurchargeSettlement.com. Online and mail claim options are available through that site. People who received direct notice may have a notice ID that can be used during filing, but anyone considering a claim should follow the current instructions on the official form.
Claims must be filed online or mailed by February 10, 2027. Filing a claim asks to receive a payment if the settlement becomes final and the claim is approved. The administrator may review claim information and reject duplicate, unsupported or otherwise invalid submissions under the approved process.
The deadline to ask for exclusion or object is December 11, 2026. Exclusion, sometimes called opting out, generally preserves a class member's ability to pursue released claims separately but gives up any settlement payment. An objection tells the court why a class member opposes part of the settlement but keeps that person in the class unless they also follow the exclusion procedure. These choices have different legal consequences, so anyone considering them should read the official notice or consult a lawyer.
What remains undecided
The court has not granted final approval. It has not finally approved requested fees, expenses or service awards, and the net amount available for claim payments is therefore not fixed. The administrator also does not yet know how many valid claims and covered transactions will share the fund.
No payment date is available. Distribution can begin only after final approval and the resolution of any appeals or other conditions described in the agreement. The court may also change deadlines or hearing arrangements, which is why the official website controls over summaries.
Frequently asked questions
Is this settlement final?
No. The court granted preliminary approval and authorized notice and claims. Final approval is scheduled to be considered on February 17, 2027.
Who may qualify?
The class generally includes people in the United States who paid an unreimbursed ATM-operator surcharge for a qualifying domestic cash withdrawal at an independent ATM from October 24, 2007 through August 14, 2026. The official notice contains the controlling definition and exclusions.
How much could I receive?
No fixed individual payment has been announced. Approved claimants will receive pro-rata shares from the net settlement fund under the allocation method, after court-approved deductions.
Do bank-owned ATM fees count?
The reported settlement definition concerns access fees paid at independently owned, non-bank ATMs. It does not cover every fee associated with every ATM transaction.
What is the claim deadline?
Claims must be submitted online or mailed by February 10, 2027. Check the official website for the current filing instructions and any court-approved updates.
Did the court find Visa or Mastercard liable?
No. The settlement is a compromise, and both companies deny the allegations and liability. Preliminary approval is not a finding that the alleged conduct occurred or violated the law.
When will payments be sent?
There is no confirmed payment date. Payments depend on final approval, any appeals, claims review and satisfaction of the settlement's effective-date conditions.