In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 1:05-md-01720

Background

This MDL arises from long-running antitrust litigation challenging Visa/Mastercard interchange and merchant discount practices; a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class settled in 2019 and broadly released claims "arising out of or relating to" the litigation, including claims of class members and their "agents."
Intuit and Square (formerly Block) timely opted out of the damages class and later sued Visa and Mastercard asserting antitrust claims based on transactions in which they acted as payment facilitators (PayFacs) for merchants ("Sellers").
Defendants moved to enforce the settlement (Motion to Enforce) and later filed a Motion for Injunction under the All Writs Act seeking dismissal of PayFac-based claims on the ground that Sellers — as class members — released claims of themselves and their agents.
The Court’s May 28, 2024 decision held Sellers (not Intuit/Square) “accepted” payment cards and are settlement-class members but declined to resolve — and expressly left triable factual questions on — who is the direct purchaser for antitrust standing and the scope/existence of any agency relationship.
Magistrate Judge Marutollo recommended denying Defendants’ injunction: he construed it as a motion for reconsideration (untimely and meritless) and alternatively found outstanding factual disputes (agency/direct-purchaser) that preclude extraordinary injunctive relief.
District Judge Brodie adopted the R&R: the motion is treated as a motion for reconsideration (and denied as untimely and not meeting the high standard), and on the merits the record does not establish that Intuit and Square were Sellers’ agents for purposes of the Settlement Release, so the All Writs Act injunction is denied and discovery stay should be lifted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Characterization of Defendants’ Motion — is it a motion for reconsideration or an All Writs Act injunction?	Intuit/Square: the motion is a successive, re‑litigation attempt; should be treated as reconsideration and denied as untimely.	Visa/Mastercard: the motion seeks equitable enforcement under the All Writs Act and need not meet reconsideration standards.	Court: Motion is substantively identical to prior Motion to Enforce and is properly construed as a motion for reconsideration; Defendants did not timely move and fail the reconsideration standard.
2) Does the Settlement Release bar PayFac claims because PayFacs were "agents" of merchant class members?	Intuit/Square: they are not Sellers’ agents for the relevant purposes; they are independent entities and direct purchasers for standing.	Visa/Mastercard: PayFac contracts label PayFacs as agents and Sellers released claims of themselves and their agents, so PayFac claims are released.	Court: The Release unambiguously covered class members’ claims and their agents, but the record does not establish as a matter of law that Intuit/Square were agents of Sellers for all transaction aspects; triable factual issues remain.
3) Can agency be decided from the public contracts alone (no discovery)?	Intuit/Square: contracts show limited "agent" role (holding/disbursing funds) and do not concede agency for interchange/acceptance; factual disputes persist.	Visa/Mastercard: contracts expressly make PayFacs agents; agency is clear on the face of the agreements, so dismissal is appropriate now.	Court: Labels alone are insufficient; New York agency requires principal’s control, and the contracts do not show Sellers exercised requisite control over PayFac-Acquirer relationships — factual development required.
4) Is extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act appropriate without resolving factual disputes and without preliminary-injunction showing?	Intuit/Square: All Writs relief is unnecessary and improper where merits and fact disputes remain; preliminary-injunction considerations apply.	Visa/Mastercard: All Writs relief needed to protect the settlement and may be granted absent traditional preliminary-injunction standard.	Court: All Writs Act is extraordinary and Defendants did not meet the burden; outstanding factual issues and lack of basis for extraordinary relief mandate denial.

Key Cases Cited

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (direct-purchaser standing rule in antitrust suits)
Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362 (2d Cir. 2024) (strict standard for motions for reconsideration)
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration is not for relitigation)
In re Am. Express Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2011) (court authority to enforce class settlements)
Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Inv. Auth., 776 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2015) (All Writs Act remedies are extraordinary)
Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Cleopatra Records, Inc., 906 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2018) (injunctions must be specific and definite)
Greenfield v. Philles Recs., Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002) (contract interpretation focuses on parties' intent)
In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 754 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2014) (contract must be read as a whole when interpreting intent)