Sam Osborn v. Visa Inc.
418 U.S. App. D.C. 193
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Independent ATM operators allege Visa and MasterCard Access Fee Rules suppress price competition and inflate consumer fees.
- Plaintiffs contend rules prevent differential pricing by networks, harming operators and consumers; networks include Visa, MasterCard and rival networks.
- District Court dismissed for lack of standing and lack of cognizable antitrust conspiracy under Sherman Act; dismissed without prejudice.
- Plaintiffs moved to modify judgment and filed proposed amended complaints; district court denied, concluding futility.
- We review de novo whether amended complaints are futile under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); underlying law reviewed de novo.
- The court vacates the district court’s judgment and remands for further proceedings on standing and a possible horizontal conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under Article III | Plaintiffs allege concrete economic injuries from Access Fee Rules and redressable relief. | District Court found no injury or redressability due to speculative chain of causation. | Standing exists; remand for on-merits consideration. |
| Existence of a horizontal conspiracy under Sherman Act | Member banks used bankcard associations to adopt and enforce supracompetitive access-fee rules. | Mere association membership and post-offering structure negate conspiracy. | Pleadings suffice to infer a horizontal restraint at the pleadings stage. |
| Antitrust injury and redressability at pleadings stage | Access Fee Rules chill competition and inflate consumer and operator costs; injury is plausible. | Allegations too speculative to show antitrust injury at pleading stage. | Antitrust injury adequately alleged; cannot affirm on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (facts needed to show injury for standing; pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility of conspiracy)
- Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010) (concerted action depends on functional operation, not form of entity)
- United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003) (antitrust liability for agreements among card networks)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (analysis of Rule 59(e) standards and merits)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motions)