Moreover, Mastercard suggested that varying foreign laws could apply if the tribunal’s interpretation stood, complicating the legal landscape and potentially reducing the damages claimable by the class action participants.
Opposition to Mastercard’s Appeal
Marie Demetriou KC, representing the claimant Walter Merricks, argued against Mastercard’s position, advocating for the retention of the tribunal’s original ruling. Demetriou emphasized that the consumer’s location should be the determining factor for the applicable law, not the location of the merchant’s acquiring bank. This, she argued, aligns with the European Commission’s findings and ensures practicality in collective proceedings.
Mastercard Appeals Jurisdiction Ruling In £10B Class Action: Background of the Case
The case stems from a 2007 European Commission decision that found Mastercard had violated EU competition laws with its multilateral interchange fees, also known as swipe fees. Mastercard initially sought to dismiss or reduce the damages claim on the basis that it could have set different fee levels, which might have been exempt from antitrust rules.
Mastercard Appeals Jurisdiction Ruling In £10B Class Action: The Collective Action Framework
This class action is a landmark under the UK’s collective action regime, introduced by the Consumer Rights Act in 2015. This legal framework aims to aid consumers in recovering losses from breaches of competition law. The case has already seen significant developments, including a Supreme Court decision that favored a more lenient standard for certifying antitrust suits for collective action.
The Court of Appeal Deliberates
The appeal is being heard by Court of Appeal Justices Julian Flaux, Nicholas Green, and Richard Snowden, with proceedings expected to continue into Friday.
