National ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa Inc.
922 F. Supp. 2d 73
D.D.C.2013Background
- Three related lawsuits allege Visa/MasterCard access-fee rules violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- Plaintiffs challenge contract provisions that cap ATM access fees on Visa/MasterCard networks, arguing they suppress lower-cost networks and harm competition.
- Plaintiffs allege conspiracy between networks and banks, with Mackmin naming banks; NAC and Stoumbos involve independent operators and consumers.
- Court granted 12(b)(6) dismissals for lack of injury in fact and lack of plausibly alleged agreement, without prejudice.
- Complaints do not identify actual market, costs, or how savings would be passed to consumers if rules lifted; no direct injury shown to plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded injury in fact under antitrust standing | NAC/Mackmin/Stoumbos allege supra-competitive fees harmed competition | No personal injury shown; injury in fact not pleaded | Yes, lack of injury in fact requires dismissal |
| Whether plaintiffs pled a conspiracy or agreement under Section 1 | Alleged pre-IPO bank involvement shows ongoing conspiracy | Membership on boards/association history insufficient to prove current agreement | No plausible agreement pleaded; dismissal granted |
| Whether the complaints adequately allege a market-driven antitrust injury | Access-fee restraints raise prices above competitive level | No stated market, costs, or linkage showing injury to competition | Market injury not shown; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, (no official reporter citation in provided text) (N.D. Cal. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim; parallel conduct alone insufficient)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible grounds for relief)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1989) (antitrust injury must flow from the defendant’s unlawful restraint)
- Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003) (injury-in-fact requires direct connection to alleged antitrust harm)
- In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (antitrust injury requires factual basis showing pass-through of overcharges)
- Ross v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA), 524 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2008) (arbitration-related injury can satisfy injury-in-fact where proper)
- Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (membership in associations does not prove horizontal conspiracy)
- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 130 S. Ct. 2289 (2010) (American Needle: single entity vs. joint action; limits on conspiracy theory)
- Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939) (hub-and-spoke conspiracy considerations and circumstantial evidence)
- Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000) (series of vertical restraints can sustain conspiracy if participation is widespread)