Visa, Mastercard $167.5M Non-Bank ATM Fee Settlement: Claims Open

Visa and Mastercard will pay $167.5 million to settle antitrust claims that their network rules inflated surcharges at independent ATMs. The nationwide class covers cash withdrawals from October 24, 2007 through August 14, 2026. Claims close February 10, 2027, and the court has not yet approved the deal.

Information last verified on September 25, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The court has preliminarily allowed notice to go out and the claims period is open. Judge Leon has NOT granted final approval. The fairness hearing is set for February 17, 2027, and no payments issue unless the settlement is approved and any appeals are resolved.

Jurisdiction scope: This is a federal case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Burke v. Visa Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01882 (RJL). The nationwide class reaches cash withdrawals at independent ATMs located in the United States and its territories only. Four statewide classes add claims under California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan antitrust law. Transactions at ATMs outside the United States are not covered.

What Happened

On August 14, 2026, Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order granting preliminary approval of a $167.5 million class settlement with Visa and Mastercard. The order, docket entry 198 in Burke v. Visa Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01882, directed notice to the class and set the schedule that now governs every deadline in the case. It also preliminarily certified the nationwide and four statewide settlement classes, appointed A.B. Data, Ltd. as settlement administrator, stayed the case against Visa and Mastercard, and temporarily barred class members from prosecuting the released claims in any other forum until the court enters final judgment. Opting out by December 11, 2026 is the only way to preserve a separate lawsuit.

The lawsuit is old. It was filed in October 2011, alongside two parallel cases described below. Its subject is the surcharge you pay when you withdraw cash from an ATM that your bank does not own.

The plaintiffs' theory concerns network operating rules rather than the fee itself. Visa and Mastercard operate the networks that connect an ATM to a cardholder's bank. According to the court-authorized notice, their agreements with independent ATM operators "prohibit IATM operators from charging different ATM access fees or 'discounting' (charging cardholders a lower access fee) if transactions could be processed on competing networks that cost less than the Visa or Mastercard networks."

The consequence the plaintiffs allege is straightforward. If an operator cannot charge less when a cheaper network is available, the operator has no reason to route transactions to cheaper networks, and cardholders never see a discount. The notice states the plaintiffs' claim directly: "Plaintiffs claim that the operating rules are price fixing, and cardholders paid higher access fees to use independent ATMs than they should have." The claims arise under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, and under California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan state antitrust laws.

Visa and Mastercard have not conceded anything. The notice is explicit: "Visa and Mastercard deny these claims and that they did anything wrong." It adds that the court "has not decided in favor of the Plaintiffs or Visa and Mastercard," and that both sides reached the agreement through a formal mediation.

Two related cases were filed the same month in October 2011, and a reader can easily confuse them. Mackmin v. Visa Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01831, covers unreimbursed access fees at bank-operated ATMs; according to the notice, a first round of settlements in that case was approved on August 22, 2022 and totaled $67 million, and a second settlement was approved on June 20, 2025 and totaled $197.5 million. National ATM Council v. Visa Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01803, is brought by the businesses that own and operate independent ATMs, not by cardholders. The notice warns that a person may be included in more than one class and that choices made in the Burke case do not affect rights in the others.

Who Is Eligible

The nationwide class definition in the notice reads: "You are included in the Settlement as part of the Nationwide Class if you are a person who was charged an access fee for a domestic cash withdrawal transaction at an Independent ATM ('IATM') in the United States between October 24, 2007, and August 14, 2026, and were not fully reimbursed by your bank."

Three terms in that sentence carry the weight.

An independent ATM is defined in the notice as "an automated teller machine that is not owned by Visa, Mastercard, or any bank or other financial institution." In practice these are the machines in convenience stores, bars, gas stations, hotel lobbies and similar locations, operated by a third-party company rather than a bank.

A domestic cash withdrawal transaction means withdrawing cash from a deposit account using an ATM or pin-debit card at an independent ATM terminal inside the United States, including its territories. The notice excludes specific transaction types: it "does not include any credit card transaction or any transaction involving a cash advance or prepaid card." A cash advance on a credit card at a corner-store ATM is therefore outside the class, as is a withdrawal against a prepaid card.

Not fully reimbursed by your bank matters for anyone with an account that refunds out-of-network ATM fees. If the bank paid the surcharge back in full, that transaction does not count.

The four statewide classes apply the same period and the same transaction definition to people who were physically in California, Illinois, Massachusetts or Michigan when the access fee was charged. Membership in a statewide class is in addition to, not instead of, the nationwide class.

The notice lists who is excluded: Visa and Mastercard; their officers, directors and employees; any entity in which they hold a controlling interest; their affiliates, legal representatives, heirs or assigns; federal, state and local government entities; the judicial officer presiding over the case, their staff and immediate family; any juror assigned to the case; and anyone who opts out.

Our open class action settlement tracker follows this case alongside other consumer settlements with live claim windows.

How to File a Claim

There is exactly one place to file: www.NonbankATMSurchargeSettlement.com, the case website run by the court-appointed claims administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd.

Recordinglaw.com is not the claims administrator, not the court, and not a filing venue. We do not process claims, we do not review eligibility, and we never collect claim information of any kind. Nothing you submit to us reaches anyone, because there is nothing to submit to us. The only place a claim can be filed is the official administrator site linked above, or by mail to the address below. Any other site that offers to file for you, particularly one that asks for a fee, is not associated with this settlement.

The deadline. A claim form must be submitted online or mailed with a postmark no later than February 10, 2027. Mailed claims go to Non-Bank ATM Surcharge Fee Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173053, Milwaukee, WI 53217. The administrator's toll-free line is 1-866-893-1052. Spanish-language versions of both the long form notice and the claim form are posted on the case website.

What the claim form asks for. The notice says only that "you must complete and submit a Claim Form." The form itself, posted on the case website, is more specific. It requires a name, street address, city, state and ZIP, a mobile phone number, and an email address entered twice. It asks for a notice ID number if the claimant received an emailed notice. It then asks three required questions: whether the person was charged an unreimbursed surcharge at an independent ATM in the United States or its territories during the class period; whether any of those transactions were conducted with an ATM or pin-debit card rather than a credit or gift card; and an estimate of the number of times the person paid such a surcharge, entered as an integer of up to four digits.

On documentation, read the form carefully. It states: "You do not need to provide any documentation at this time. However, the Claims Administrator may ask you for additional documentation or proof that supports your claim." A separate line is blunter: the claim form "IS SUBMITTED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK YOU TO PROVIDE BANK STATEMENTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM." The certification a claimant signs includes an agreement "to provide additional information about this claim if the Claims Administrator asks me to do so." So this is not a settlement where proof is waived. It is one where proof is deferred, and the transaction estimate is a sworn statement.

How money arrives. Payments are sent digitally by email, which is why a valid email address and mobile number are required fields. The notice says recipients "will be provided with a number of digital payment options to select from, such as PayPal or a virtual debit card," and that a mailed paper check can be requested instead.

How much. The notice does not estimate a per-person figure, and neither will we. Its language is: "Each valid claim will be eligible to receive a pro rata (or proportional) share of the Net Settlement Fund, based on the number of qualifying surcharged transactions that are submitted. Because the amount of each payment depends on the number of approved transactions, nobody can know in advance how much the payment will be." The net fund is what remains after attorneys' fees, litigation costs and expenses, taxes, up to $3 million in notice and administration costs, and service awards are deducted from the $167.5 million.

What the Law Actually Says

Two bodies of law are doing the work here, and they answer different questions.

Sherman Act section 1 supplies the theory of liability. The statute, 15 U.S.C. section 1, provides that "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." The plaintiffs' case is not that a surcharge is unlawful; surcharges are lawful. It is that a network rule forbidding operators from competing on the price of that surcharge is an agreement restraining trade, with the alleged effect of holding fees above what competition would have produced. That characterization is contested. Visa and Mastercard deny it, and no court has ruled that the operating rules violated the Sherman Act. A settlement resolves the dispute without resolving that question.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) explains why a settlement is not money. Rule 23(e) provides that the claims of a certified class, or a class proposed to be certified for settlement purposes, "may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval." Preliminary approval is not that approval. It is the step under Rule 23(e)(1) where a court, finding it likely to approve the deal, directs notice to the class so members can evaluate it, claim, object or opt out.

Final approval comes only after a hearing, and only if the judge finds the settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Rule 23(e)(2). That rule lists what the court must weigh: whether the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the class; whether the proposal was negotiated at arm's length; whether the relief is adequate, taking into account the costs, risks and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief, the terms of any proposed attorney's fee award, and any side agreements; and whether the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

Judge Leon's August 14 order tracks that framework. It states that the court "finds that it is likely to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2)," and that it is likely to certify the settlement class, both determinations being preliminary and "subject to further consideration at a hearing." Filing a claim now is a bet on an approval that has not happened yet.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The striking fact about this case is its age. The complaint was filed in October 2011. Preliminary approval of a settlement came in August 2026, and if the schedule holds and nobody appeals, payments would go out sometime in 2027. That is roughly sixteen years from filing to money. Class members who paid a surcharge in 2008 will be asked, in 2027, to estimate how many times they used a corner-store ATM across an eighteen-year window.

That gap explains the unusual design of the claim form. No plaintiff has records of every convenience-store withdrawal since 2007, and the administrator knows it. So the form asks for a sworn estimate rather than documentation, and reserves the right to ask for bank statements later. This is a reasonable accommodation to reality, but it is not an invitation to guess upward. The certification is made under penalty of perjury, and an estimate is still a representation to a federal court. The honest approach is to think about actual habits over the period, how often you used non-bank ATMs, and whether your bank reimbursed those fees, and to submit a number you could defend if asked.

The pro rata structure is the other thing worth internalizing. The fund is fixed at $167.5 million. Attorneys' fees of up to 30 percent, plus costs, notice and administration expenses of up to $3 million, and service awards of up to $17,500 per class representative, all come out of it before distribution. What remains is divided across every approved transaction claimed. A potential class of tens of millions of American cardholders spread across an eighteen-year period means the per-transaction share is a function of participation, and no honest source can tell you what it will be today. Anyone publishing a confident per-person estimate for this settlement is guessing.

There is a structural point here that outlasts this case. The alleged harm was a rule against discounting, not a price. Rules that suppress the ability to compete on price are harder for consumers to notice than a fee increase, because there is no before-and-after to observe. Nobody stands at an ATM and perceives the discount they were never offered. The same dynamic appears across the consumer fee cases we track, from the SunTrust overdraft fee settlement to the Dovenmuehle pay-to-pay phone fee matter, where the question is less whether a charge existed than whether the market was allowed to discipline it.

Finally, the notice program itself is a warning about scams. The order directed short-form notice by direct email, digital advertising, a PR Newswire distribution to US and Hispanic news desks, and a print advertisement in People magazine. A campaign that broad reliably attracts imitators. Legitimate notice in this case does not ask for a Social Security number, a bank account number or a payment to file, and the only claim-filing URL is the administrator's own. The same instinct applies to unsolicited messages about any breach or settlement, which is the subject of our step by step guide to what to do after a data breach.

What Happens Next

The court's August 14, 2026 order set every date by counting days from the order's entry, and the published deadlines match that count exactly.

November 27, 2026. Class co-lead counsel must file the motion for attorneys' fees, costs and service awards, at 105 days from entry of the order. The notice states that counsel will ask for fees of up to 30 percent of the settlement fund plus reimbursement of costs and expenses, and service awards of up to $17,500 for each class representative. The motion will be posted on the case website when filed, which means class members who want to see the actual fee request before deciding whether to object have roughly two weeks to review it.

December 11, 2026. This is the deadline for three separate things, at 119 days from entry. A request for exclusion must be received by this date, mailed to Non-Bank ATM Surcharge Fee Settlement, ATTN: EXCLUSIONS, P.O. Box 173001, Milwaukee, WI 53217, and must include a statement of the decision to be excluded, full name, address, telephone number, email if any, and a signature. An objection must be postmarked by this date and mailed to the Court Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001. A notice of intention to appear at the hearing carries the same date. Objecting and filing a claim are compatible; excluding yourself and filing a claim are not.

February 10, 2027. The claims deadline, at 180 days from entry of the order.

February 17, 2027. The fairness hearing, scheduled for 4:00 p.m. at the courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue NW in Washington, DC. Attendance is not required, and the notice states that a timely written objection will be considered whether or not the objector appears. The notice also cautions that the hearing "may be held electronically or moved to a different date or time without additional notice," so the case website is the authoritative source for its status.

After that, approval and appeals. The court will decide whether to approve the settlement, and the notice does not predict how long that will take. If approval is granted, it can be appealed, and the notice says it is "hard to estimate how long it might take for any appeals to be resolved." If the settlement is approved and no appeals are filed, the claims administrator "anticipates that payments will be sent out within six months."

If the court rejects the settlement, no payments are made and the litigation against Visa and Mastercard continues. Should money remain after all claims are processed, the notice says it goes to a non-profit or "next best" recipient approved by the court, and that "No remaining funds will be returned to Visa or Mastercard."

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Recording Law is not the claims administrator, the court, or counsel in this case, and we do not collect or process claim information. Settlement terms, deadlines and case schedules change, and the court may move the fairness hearing without further notice. Verify every detail against the official case website and the court-authorized notice before acting, and consult a licensed attorney about your own situation.

Related articles

• Open class action settlement tracker covering consumer settlements with live claim windows.
• What to do after a data breach, a step by step guide including how to spot fake claim sites.
• Dovenmuehle mortgage pay-to-pay phone fee settlement, a comparable junk-fee case.
• SunTrust overdraft fee settlement, another consumer banking fee class action.

Last updated: 2026-09-25. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-25.