XML 62 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Legal Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Legal Matters | Note 20—Legal Matters The Company is a 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:
| For the Years Ended September 30, |  |
| 2024 |  | 2023 |  |
| (in millions) |  |
Balance as of beginning of period | $ | 1,751 |  |  | $ | 1,456 |  |  |
Provision for uncovered legal matters | 322 |  |  | 21 |  |  |
Provision for covered legal matters | 248 |  |  | 1,024 |  |  |
Payments for legal matters | (594) |  |  | (750) |  |  |
Balance as of end of period | $ | 1,727 |  |  | $ | 1,751 |  |  |
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:
| For the Years Ended September 30,
| 2024 |  | 2023
| (in millions)
Balance as of beginning of period | $ | 1,621 |  |  | $ | 1,441 |
Provision for interchange multidistrict litigation | 140 |  |  | 906 |
Payments for U.S. covered litigation | (224) |  |  | (726) |
Balance as of end of period | $ | 1,537 |  |  | $ | 1,621 |
During fiscal 2024, the Company recorded additional accruals to address claims associated with the interchange multidistrict litigation. The accrual balance is consistent with the Company’s best estimate of its share of a probable and reasonably estimable loss with respect to the 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 class A common stock 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:
| For the Years Ended September 30,
| 2024 |  | 2023
| (in millions)
Balance as of beginning of period | $ | 110 |  |  | $ | 11 |
Provision for VE territory covered litigation | 108 |  |  | 118 |
Payments for VE territory covered litigation | (146) |  |  | (19) |
Balance as of end of period | $ | 72 |  |  | $ | 110 |
U.S. Covered Litigation Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) - 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 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 district 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 district court’s certification of the merchant class, reversed the approval of the settlement and remanded the case to the district 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. Damages Class. 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. 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 March 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement by the district court. On August 3, 2023, the district court entered an order appointing a special master to resolve matters arising out of or relating to the Amended Settlement Agreement’s plan of administration. Indirect Purchaser Claims. Three complaints have been filed against Visa and other defendants asserting violations of certain state antitrust laws and seeking recovery as indirect purchasers. A complaint was filed by Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc. on May 29, 2020, against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of gasoline retailers operating in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Two separate complaints were subsequently filed in 2021 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 — one by Hayley Lanning and others on April 28 and one by Camp Grounds Coffee and others on June 16. Plaintiffs in all three actions subsequently served motions for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, in May and September 2024, the district court denied motions for partial summary judgment filed by the Lanning and Camp Grounds plaintiffs and the Old Jericho plaintiffs, which all three plaintiff groups have now appealed. 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. Injunctive Relief Class. Following remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the appointment of Injunctive Relief Class counsel, 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. From January through April, 2024, the district court issued rulings on various summary judgment motions. The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment under Ohio v. American Express, denied defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the post-IPO conspiracy claims, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs’ monopolization claims. The district court denied the Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On March 25, 2024, Visa and Mastercard entered into an agreement to resolve the Injunctive Relief Class claims (Injunctive Relief Settlement Agreement), subject to court approval. The Injunctive Relief Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, (i) a release from class members for claims for declaratory, injunctive or equitable relief arising out of conduct alleged by the Injunctive Relief Class in the litigation that have accrued or may accrue in the future during the term of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Agreement; (ii) provisions requiring reductions and caps on U.S. credit interchange rates; and (iii) provisions requiring modifications to the Company’s rules in the U.S. that, among other things, streamline requirements for merchants who wish to impose a surcharge on credit transactions. On March 26, 2024, the Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which was denied on June 25, 2024. 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. The individual merchant actions described in this section 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 73% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the Amended Settlement Agreement with the Damages Class plaintiffs. The district court’s rulings on defendants’ summary judgment motions under Ohio v. American Express and on post-IPO conspiracy claims, described above, apply to these Individual Merchant Actions. In addition, on October 9, 2022, defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding damages for EMV-related chargebacks was denied. On February 22, 2024, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on Illinois Brick standing was denied, and the district court denied as moot certain plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment. On April 2, 2024, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment on certain plaintiffs’ monopolization claims. On May 28, 2024, the district court found that merchants serviced by Intuit and Square are members of the MDL Damages Class and therefore granted defendants’ motion to enforce the Amended Settlement Agreement, and denied a motion by Intuit Inc. and Intuit Payment Solutions, LLC (Intuit) for partial summary judgment, regarding claims in the actions brought by Intuit and Block, Inc. (Block) in their capacity as payment facilitators. On August 2, 2024, defendants filed a pre-motion letter setting forth bases for a proposed motion for injunction compelling dismissal of claims by Intuit and Block. In July 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded three actions to the courts in which they were originally filed. The action led by Grubhub Holdings Inc. was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The actions led by Target Corporation and by 7-Eleven, Inc. were both remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York subsequently set a trial date for a subset of the plaintiffs in those actions. On August 21, 2024, defendants in those actions filed a motion for a revised summary judgment ruling based on Illinois Brick. 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. Consumer Interchange Litigation In 2022, a putative class action was filed in California state court against Visa, Mastercard and certain financial institutions on behalf of all Visa and Mastercard cardholders in California who made a purchase using a Visa-branded or Mastercard-branded payment card in California from January 1, 2004. Plaintiffs primarily allege a conspiracy to fix interchange fees and seek injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and damages as direct and indirect purchasers based on alleged violations of California law. After plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as asserted in the prior complaint, Visa removed the action to federal court, and the case was transferred to MDL 1720. On July 31, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended that a motion by defendants to compel arbitration and stay litigation be denied and a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiffs’ California law claims be granted. On August 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. VE Territory Covered Litigation Europe Merchant Litigation Since July 2013, proceedings have been commenced by more than 1,150 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, other European domestic, intra-European Economic Area and/or other inter-regional. As of the filing date, Visa has settled the claims asserted by over 475 Merchants, and there are approximately 600 Merchants with outstanding claims. In addition, over 30 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. 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 anticipates additional claims in the future. O n June 17, 2020, with respect to claims asserted by one Merchant, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found that Visa’s UK domestic interchange restricted competition under applicable competition law. On September 30, 2021, Visa reached a confidential settlement agreement resolving the 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 restrictive of competition, but that the question of whether those fees are a restriction of competition after the introduction of the IFR, along with inter-regional and commercial interchange fees across all time periods, 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. From February 14 to March 28, 2024, a trial occurred to consider whether certain interchange rates restrict competition in violation of UK antitrust law. 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. On June 8, 2023, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal initially denied class certification in the two class action claims. However, a class certification re-hearing took place in April 2024. In June 2024, the CAT granted class certification in the claims regarding interchange fees on commercial cards. In October 2024, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the certification. 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. Visa filed its response on July 22, 2024. Other Litigation U.S. Department of Justice On March 13, 2012, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (Division) issued a Civil Investigative Demand (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 focused on PIN-authenticated Visa Debit and Visa’s competitive responses to the Dodd-Frank Act, including Visa’s fixed acquirer network fee. Visa has cooperated with the Division in connection with the CID. On March 26, 2021, June 11, 2021, January 4, 2023 and May 2, 2023, the Division issued CIDs 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 CIDs focused on U.S. debit and competition with other payment methods and networks. On September 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Visa alleging violations of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges Visa has monopolized and attempted to monopolize general purpose debit network services and card-not-present debit network services in the United States through agreements with merchants, acquirers, and others and that certain agreements unreasonably restrain competition or trade in those markets. The complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin Visa from engaging in the alleged anticompetitive practices. U.S. Debit Class Actions Beginning on October 1, 2024, five putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Visa Inc., alleging that Visa has monopolized and attempted to monopolize general purpose debit network services and card-not-present debit network services in the United States through agreements with merchants, acquirers, and others and that certain agreements unreasonably restrain competition or trade in those markets. One action was subsequently dismissed voluntarily. An additional putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting similar allegations. Each of the pending cases alleges violations of the Sherman Act and seeks damages, among other relief. Some of these cases assert violations of one or more state laws and seek injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent one of the following classes: (i) merchants or others that accepted general-purpose Visa debit cards from certain dates in October 2020; (ii) persons who either purchased goods or services from a merchant that accepted Visa debit cards or who directly or indirectly paid interchange fees as debit card holders from October 20, 2020; or (iii) persons, business, or entities that have paid Visa’s fees for debit transaction routing services from September 24, 2020. Federal Trade Commission Civil Investigative Demand On November 4, 2019, the Bureau of Competition of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 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 FTC issued a CID to Visa requesting additional documents and information. Visa has cooperated with the FTC in connection with the CID. 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 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. Consumer Class Actions. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action, Burke, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al. (Burke) 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 in Mackmin, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., (Mackmin), 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 class certification in each case. On August 8, 2022, the district court in Mackmin granted plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class action settlement with the three financial institution defendants and entered final judgments of dismissal as to those institutions. On May 2, 2024, Visa and Mastercard entered a definitive class settlement agreement with plaintiffs in Mackmin, which the district court preliminarily approved on July 26, 2024. Burke, the remaining consumer action, is still pending. 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. The district court clarified that this case is not part of MDL 1720, and on August 28, 2020, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On November 30, 2022, Visa and other defendants served motions to decertify and for summary judgment, which the court subsequently denied. MiCamp Solutions On December 8, 2023, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by MiCamp Solutions, LLC against Visa on behalf of a purported class of Independent Sales Organizations (ISOs) and their merchant customers and a purported subclass of ISOs. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state antitrust laws, state data privacy laws and the constitution, based on, among other things, Visa’s interchange fees and its assessment of fees for non-compliance with its surcharge rules. The complaint seeks to recover damages and to enjoin the enforcement of Visa’s default interchange and surcharge rules, among other things. On March 5, 2024, MiCamp Solutions filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same purported class and subclass, and containing similar allegations as in the original complaint, and on March 19, 2024, Visa filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint. Mirage Wine + Spirit’s Inc. On December 14, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by Mirage Wine + Spirit’s Inc. against Apple Inc. (Apple), Visa Inc. and Mastercard Incorporated on behalf of certain merchants in the United States that accepted Apple Pay as a method of payment at the physical point-of-sale from December 14, 2019. Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy under which Apple agreed not to enter a purported market for point-of-sale payment card networks services and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees based on alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. After various orders that resulted in the case being maintained in its originally filed court, plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 5, 2024. Thereafter, the district court set a trial date in 2026. On September 26, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. U.S. Income Tax Litigation On June 21, 2024, the Company filed a complaint against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The complaint challenges the denial by the Internal Revenue Service of certain income tax deductions from 2008 through 2015 related to software that the Company developed in the United States for utilization by Visa clients. European Commission Client Incentive Agreements Investigation On December 2, 2022, the European Commission (EC) informed Visa that it had opened a preliminary investigation into Visa’s incentive agreements with clients. On October 1, 2024, the EC informed Visa that it has closed the matter. European Commission Acquirer Fees Investigation On August 30, 2024, the EC informed Visa that it has opened a preliminary investigation into Visa’s fees charged to acquirers. 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. Jurisdictional challenges have been granted in some claims and denied in other claims, and these decisions have been appealed.

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 -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration