XML 57 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

Legal Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Legal Matters | Note 20—Legal Matters The Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings. Some of these proceedings involve complex claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. For those proceedings where a loss is determined to be only reasonably possible or probable but not estimable, the Company has disclosed the nature of the claim. Additionally, unless otherwise disclosed below with respect to these proceedings, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Although the Company believes that it has strong defenses for the litigation and regulatory proceedings described below, it could, in the future, incur judgments or fines or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. From time to time, the Company may engage in settlement discussions or mediations with respect to one or more of its outstanding litigation matters, either on its own behalf or collectively with other parties. The litigation accrual is an estimate and is based on management’s understanding of its litigation profile, the specifics of each case, advice of counsel to the extent appropriate and management’s best estimate of incurred loss as of the balance sheet date. The following table summarizes the activity related to accrued litigation:
| 2022 |  | 2021
| (in millions)
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 983 |  |  | $ | 914 |
Provision for uncovered legal matters | 6 |  |  | 4 |
Provision for covered legal matters | 885 |  |  | 125 |
Payments for legal matters | (418) |  |  | (60) |
Balance at end of period | $ | 1,456 |  |  | $ | 983 |
Accrual Summary—U.S. Covered Litigation Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. and Visa International are parties to certain legal proceedings that are covered by the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, which the Company refers to as the U.S. covered litigation. An accrual for the U.S. covered litigation and a charge to the litigation provision are recorded when a loss is deemed to be probable and reasonably estimable. In making this determination, the Company evaluates available information, including but not limited to actions taken by the Company’s litigation committee. The total accrual related to the U.S. covered litigation could be either higher or lower than the escrow account balance. See further discussion below under U.S. Covered Litigation and Note 5—U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans. The following table summarizes the accrual activity related to U.S. covered litigation:
| 2022 |  | 2021
| (in millions)
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 881 |  |  | $ | 888 |
Provision for interchange multidistrict litigation | 861 |  |  | — |
Payments for U.S. covered litigation | (301) |  |  | (7) |
Balance at end of period | $ | 1,441 |  |  | $ | 881 |
During fiscal 2022, the Company recorded additional accruals of $861 million and deposited $850 million into the U.S. litigation escrow account to address claims of certain merchants who opted out of the Amended Settlement Agreement (as described herein). The U.S. covered litigation accrual balance is consistent with the Company’s best estimate of its share of a probable and reasonably estimable loss with respect to U.S. covered litigation. While this estimate is consistent with the Company’s view of the current status of the litigation, the probable and reasonably estimable loss or range of such loss could materially vary based on developments in the litigation. The Company will continue to consider and reevaluate this estimate in light of the substantial uncertainties with respect to the litigation. The Company is unable to estimate a potential loss or range of loss, if any, at trial if negotiated resolutions cannot be reached. Accrual Summary—VE Territory Covered Litigation Visa Inc., Visa International and Visa Europe are parties to certain legal proceedings that are covered by the Europe retrospective responsibility plan. Unlike the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, the Europe retrospective responsibility plan does not have an escrow account that is used to fund settlements or judgments. The Company is entitled to recover VE territory covered losses through periodic adjustments to the conversion rates applicable to the series B and C preferred stock. An accrual for the VE territory covered losses and a reduction to stockholders’ equity will be recorded when the loss is deemed to be probable and reasonably estimable. See further discussion below under VE Territory Covered Litigation and Note 5—U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans. The following table summarizes the accrual activity related to VE territory covered litigation:
| 2022 |  | 2021
| (in millions)
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 102 |  |  | $ | 21 |
Provision for VE territory covered litigation | 24 |  |  | 125 |
Payments for VE territory covered litigation | (115) |  |  | (44) |
Balance at end of period | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 102 |
U.S. Covered Litigation Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) – Putative Class Actions Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa International and/or Mastercard, and in some cases, certain U.S. financial institutions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Court) for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL 1720. A group of purported class plaintiffs subsequently filed amended and supplemental class complaints. The individual and class complaints generally challenged, among other things, Visa’s and Mastercard’s purported setting of interchange reimbursement fees, their “no surcharge” and honor-all-cards rules, alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees, and Visa’s reorganization and IPO, under the federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, certain state unfair competition laws. The complaints sought money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and, in one instance, an order that the IPO be unwound. Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated, various U.S. financial institution defendants, and the class plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement (2012 Settlement Agreement) to resolve the class plaintiffs’ claims. Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement, the Company deposited approximately $4.0 billion from the U.S. litigation escrow account and approximately $500 million attributable to interchange reductions for an eight-month period into court-authorized settlement accounts. Visa subsequently received from the Court and deposited into the Company’s U.S. litigation escrow account “takedown payments” of approximately $1.1 billion. On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s certification of the merchant class, reversed the approval of the settlement, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court entered an order appointing interim counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs, a “Damages Class” and an “Injunctive Relief Class.” The plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class subsequently filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, seeking money damages and attorneys’ fees, among other relief. A new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action complaint against Visa, Mastercard, and certain bank defendants seeking, among other things, an injunction against the setting of default interchange rates; against certain Visa operating rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and against various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee, as well as attorneys’ fees. On September 17, 2018, Visa, Mastercard, and certain U.S. financial institutions reached an agreement with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class to resolve all Damages Class claims (Amended Settlement Agreement). The Amended Settlement Agreement supersedes the 2012 Settlement Agreement and includes, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability arising out of conduct alleged by the Damages Class in the litigation, including claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. Participating class members will not release injunctive relief claims as a named representative or non-representative class member in the putative Injunctive Relief Class. The Amended Settlement Agreement also required an additional settlement payment from all defendants totaling $900 million, with the Company’s share of $600 million paid from the Company’s litigation escrow account established pursuant to the Company’s retrospective responsibility plan. See Note 5—U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans. The additional settlement payment was added to the approximately $5.3 billion previously deposited into settlement accounts by the defendants pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement. Following a motion by the Damages Class plaintiffs for final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, certain merchants in the proposed settlement class objected to the settlement and/or submitted requests to opt out of the settlement class. On December 13, 2019, the district court granted final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, which was subsequently appealed. Based on the percentage of class members (by payment volume) that opted out of the class, $700 million was returned to defendants. Visa’s portion of the takedown payment, approximately $467 million, was deposited into the U.S. litigation escrow account. On July 18, 2022, in response to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the district court certified its final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement as a partial final judgment. On May 29, 2020, a complaint was filed by Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc. against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of gasoline retailers operating in 24 states and the District of Columbia. On April 28, 2021, a complaint was filed by Hayley Lanning and others, and on June 16, 2021, a complaint was filed by Camp Grounds Coffee and others, each against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of merchants located in 25 states and the District of Columbia who have taken payment using the Square card acceptance service. Each of these complaints alleges violations of the antitrust laws of those jurisdictions and seeks recovery for plaintiffs as indirect purchasers. To the extent these plaintiffs’ claims are not released by the Am ended Settlement Agreement, Visa believes they are covered by the U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan. On June 1, 2020, Visa, jointly with other defendants, served a motion for summary judgment regarding the claims in the Injunctive Relief Class complaint. The putative Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs served a motion for partial summary judgment. On September 27, 2021, the district court certified without opt out rights an Injunctive Relief Class consisting of all merchants that accept Visa or Mastercard credit or debit cards in the United States at any time between December 18, 2020 and entry of final judgment. Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) – Individual Merchant Actions Since May 2013, more than 50 cases have been filed in or removed to various federal district courts by hundreds of merchants generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Mastercard Incorporated and Mastercard International Incorporated, although some also include certain U.S. financial institutions as defendants. A number of the cases include allegations that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments. Some of the cases seek an injunction against the setting of default interchange rates; certain Visa operating rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee. In addition, some cases assert that Visa, Mastercard and/or their member banks conspired to prevent the adoption of chip-and-PIN authentication in the U.S. or otherwise circumvent competition in the debit market. Certain individual merchants have filed amended complaints to, among other things, add claims for injunctive relief and update claims for damages. In addition to the cases filed by individual merchants, Visa, Mastercard, and/or certain U.S. financial institution defendants in MDL 1720 filed complaints against certain merchants in the Eastern District of New York seeking, in part, a declaration that Visa’s conduct did not violate federal or state antitrust laws. The individual merchant actions described in this section have been either assigned to the judge presiding over MDL 1720, have been transferred, or are being considered for transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for inclusion in MDL 1720. These individual merchant actions are U.S. covered litigation for purposes of the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan. See Note 5—U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans. Visa has reached settlements with a number of merchants representing approximately 58% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the Amended Settlement Agreement with the Damages Class plaintiffs. On June 1, 2020, Visa, jointly with other defendants, served motions for summary judgment regarding the claims in certain of the individual merchant actions, as well as certain declaratory judgment claims brought by Visa, Mastercard, and some U.S. financial institutions. Plaintiffs in certain of the individual merchant actions served motions for partial summary judgment. On October 9, 2022, defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding damages for EMV-related chargebacks was denied. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in the putative class actions and individual merchant actions, but the final outcome of individual legal claims is inherently unpredictable. The Company could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome of merchants’ claims, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial results in the period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable. While the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan is designed to address monetary liability in these matters, see Note 5—U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans, judgments or settlements that require the Company to change its business practices, rules, or contractual commitments could adversely affect the Company’s financial results. VE Territory Covered Litigation Europe Merchant Litigation Since July 2013, proceedings have been commenced by more than 850 Merchants (the capitalized term “Merchant”, when used in this section, means a Merchant together with subsidiary/affiliate companies that are party to the same claim) against Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and other Visa subsidiaries in the UK and other countries, primarily relating to interchange rates in Europe and, in some cases, relating to fees charged by Visa and certain Visa rules. They seek damages for alleged anti-competitive conduct in relation to one or more of the following types of interchange fees for credit and debit card transactions: UK domestic, Irish domestic, other European domestic, intra-European Economic Area and/or other inter-regional. More than 30 additional Merchants have threatened to commence similar proceedings. Standstill agreements have been entered into with respect to some of those threatened Merchant claims, several of which have been settled. As of the filing date, Visa has settled claims of over 150 Merchants, leaving more than 700 Merchants with pending or threatened claims. While the amount of interchange being challenged could be substantial, these claims have not yet been filed and their full scope is not yet known. The Company has learned that several additional European entities have indicated they may also bring similar claims, and the Company anticipates additional claims in the future. A trial took place from November 2016 to March 2017, relating to claims asserted by one Merchant. In judgments published in November 2017 and February 2018, the court found as to that Merchant that Visa’s UK domestic interchange did not restrict competition, but that if it had been found to restrict competition, it would not be exemptible under applicable law. On July 4, 2018, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s rulings, finding that Visa’s UK domestic interchange restricted competition and the question of whether Visa’s UK domestic interchange was exempt from the finding of restriction under applicable law had been incorrectly decided. Following an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on June 17, 2020, the Supreme Court found that Visa’s UK domestic interchange restricted competition under applicable competition law. On September 30, 2021, Visa reached a confidential settlement agreement resolving one Merchant’s claims. On November 26, 2021, with respect to certain pending Merchant claims, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) found that UK and certain other domestic and intra-European Economic Area consumer interchange fees before the introduction of the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR) were a restriction of competition, but that the question of whether those fees, along with inter-European Economic Area fees, are a restriction of competition after the introduction of the IFR would need to be resolved at trial. Whether any interchange fees are exempt from the finding of restriction under applicable law and the assessment of damages, if any, will also need to be considered at trial. On October 4, 2022, the UK Court of Appeal affirmed the CAT’s ruling. On June 1, 2022, two class action claims were filed against Visa with the CAT on behalf of UK businesses that accepted Visa-branded payment cards at any time since June 1, 2016, alleging that UK domestic, intra-European Economic Area, and inter-regional interchange fees on commercial credit cards, and inter-regional interchange fees on consumer cards, are anti-competitive. The Europe retrospective responsibility plan covers liabilities and losses relating to the covered period, which generally refers to the period before the closing of the Visa Europe acquisition. The full scope of potential damages is not yet known because not all Merchant claims have been served and Visa has substantial defenses. However, the claims that have been issued, served and/or preserved, seek several billion dollars in damages. Other Litigation On November 14, 2021, a motion to certify a class action was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the Israel Central District Court. The motion asserts that interchange fees on cross-border transactions in Israel and the Honor All Cards rule are anti-competitive and seeks damages and injunctive relief. On July 3, 2022, Visa filed a motion challenging jurisdiction. Other Litigation U.S. ATM Access Fee Litigation National ATM Council Class Action. In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and Mastercard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa’s rule (and a similar Mastercard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on October 1, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted defendants’ motion for leave to appeal the district court’s decision. Consumer Class Actions. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the same federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class actions challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, Mastercard and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in each case, and on October 1, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted defendants’ motion for leave to appeal the district court’s decision. On August 8, 2022, in the case in which the three financial institutions were named, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class action settlement with those institutions and entered final judgments of dismissal as to those institutions. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (2012) On March 13, 2012, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (Division) issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or “CID”, to Visa Inc. seeking documents and information regarding a potential violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The CID focuses on PIN-Authenticated Visa Debit and Visa’s competitive responses to the Dodd-Frank Act, including Visa’s fixed acquirer network fee. Visa is cooperating with the Division in connection with the CID. Pulse Network On November 25, 2014, Pulse Network LLC filed suit against Visa Inc. in federal district court in Texas, alleging that Visa has, among other things, monopolized and attempted to monopolize debit card network services markets. On August 29, 2022, Pulse filed an amended complaint, which makes similar allegations and seeks unspecified treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief, including to enjoin the fixed acquirer network fee structure, and Visa’s agreements relating to debit with issuers, acquirers and merchants. EMV Chip Liability Shift Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam’s Market, and Grove Liquors LLC filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Mastercard, Discover, American Express, EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The amended complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty, or otherwise rejected payment card transactions from defendants to the purported class of merchants, defined as those merchants throughout the U.S. who have been subjected to the “Liability Shift” since October 2015. Plaintiffs claim that the “Liability Shift” violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. EMVCo and the financial institution defendants were dismissed, and the matter was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which has clarified that this case is not part of MDL 1720. On August 28, 2020, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Federal Trade Commission Civil Investigative Demand On November 4, 2019, the Bureau of Competition of the United States Federal Trade Commission (Bureau) requested that Visa provide, on a voluntary basis, documents and information relating to an investigation as to whether Visa’s actions inhibited merchant choice in the selection of debit payments networks in potential violation of the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. On June 9, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or “CID”, to Visa requesting additional documents and information. Visa is cooperating with the FTC in connection with the CID. Euronet Litigation On December 13, 2019, Euronet 360 Finance Limited, Euronet Polska Spolka z.o.o. and Euronet Services spol. s.r.o. (Euronet) served a claim in the UK alleging that certain rules affecting ATM access fees in Poland, the Czech Republic and Greece by Visa Inc. and Mastercard Incorporated, and certain of their subsidiaries, breach various competition laws. Euronet seeks damages, costs, and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from enforcing these rules. Trial has been scheduled for a date on or after October 2, 2023. European Commission Staged Digital Wallets Investigation On June 26, 2020, the European Commission (EC) informed Visa that it opened a preliminary investigation into Visa’s rules regarding staged digital wallets and issued a request for information regarding such rules. Visa is cooperating with the EC in connection with the investigation. German ATM Litigation Beginning in December 2021, Visa was served with claims in Germany brought by German banks against Visa Europe and Visa Inc. The banks claim that Visa’s ATM rules prohibiting the charging of access fees on domestic cash withdrawals are anti-competitive, and the majority seek damages. Visa has filed challenges to the jurisdiction of the German courts to hear these claims. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (2021) On March 26, 2021, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (the Division) issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or “CID”, to Visa seeking documents and information regarding a potential violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The CID focuses on U.S. debit and competition with other payment methods and networks. On June 11, 2021, the Division issued a further CID seeking additional documents and information on the same subjects. Visa is cooperating with the Division in connection with the investigation. Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Litigation Following an initial class action complaint filed on July 9, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed on December 6, 2021 against Visa in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by several individuals on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and/or purported California, Washington, Massachusetts or New Jersey subclasses, of cardholders who conducted a transaction in a foreign currency. The amended complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment and restitution as well as violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On September 16, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting the same claims, and on November 7, 2022, Visa filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration