advertisement
advertisement

Lawyers To Interchange Judge: Tell Our Clients To Shut Up

Written by Frank Hayes
April 10th, 2013

All those noisy complaints about the interchange settlement are apparently having an effect. A federal judge will hear arguments today (April 11) to decide whether some retailer groups can continue to blast away at the proposed class-action settlement on websites designed to convince retailers to opt out of it. And it’s the lawyers representing those groups who are trying to shut them up.

On March 29, lawyers officially representing the class—that’s merchants who have accepted Visa (NYSE:V) and MasterCard (NYSE:MA) payments since 2004, which means virtually all retailers—complained to U.S. District Judge John Gleeson about the websites set up by the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and the National Grocers Association. Such sites as MerchantsObject.com offer both arguments against the settlement and tools to let merchants automatically send opt-out letters to the court, so they won’t be covered by the settlement.

“These unauthorized and misleading communications from the trade association plaintiffs pose a real threat of confusing class members and undermining the court-approved notice processes,” the attorneys alleged in a filing.

In case you’re having trouble keeping track: NACS and the other trade groups are plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard. The lawyers who are complaining are officially representing the plaintiffs. They’re supposed to be on the same side. But NACS and most of the other named plaintiffs are objecting to the settlement that their lawyers negotiated, and that Judge Gleeson gave preliminary approval to last November. In other words, the lawyers really are asking the judge for what amounts to a gag order against their own clients.

At any rate, Judge Gleeson has ordered the anti-settlement groups to show why they shouldn’t have to change the websites and send corrective information to every class member who opted out of the settlement “based on the false or misleading information.” That’s what the hearing today is about.

For their part, the anti-settlement trade groups say their sites aren’t misleading. “Proponents of the settlement are afraid of allowing contrary views to be disseminated to the class,” said Jeff Shinder, a lawyer for the trade groups. “They are attempting to impose some form of regulation on the ability of the objecting plaintiffs to communicate with their members and that raises First Amendment issues.”

The fact that objections to the settlement have escalated to the point of gag orders says a lot about how completely things have fallen apart on the plaintiff side of this case. To be clear, some big plaintiffs—most notably Kroger (NYSE:KR)—still support the settlement’s terms. Other big chains that weren’t named plaintiffs but will be covered by some terms of the settlement even if they opt out, include Walmart (NYSE:WMT), Target (NYSE:TGT) and Home Depot (NYSE:HD), all of whom say they oppose the settlement.

But when class lawyers and named plaintiffs are at each others’ throats this way, it’s pretty obvious that this settlement is much further from being a certainty than it appeared last summer. And it’s going to be a very long five months before the final “fairness hearing” to decide whether the settlement will get final approval will be on Sept. 12.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Lawyers To Interchange Judge: Tell Our Clients To Shut Up

  1. Fly on the Wall Says:

    Among other things what the plaintiff attorneys have brought to the court’s attention is that some of the web sites in question encourage merchants to object and opt-out together, without explaining they have the option of one or the other (a merchant can object yet remain in the class in the event the settlement is approved, they would still be eligible to file a claim and receive settlement funds, avail themselves of the changes in rules, etc.). If merchants object and opt-out and the settlement is approved, they have unknowingly cut themselves off from the settlement all together.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.