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. Accordingly, except as disclosed, the Company has not established reserves or ranges of possible loss related to these proceedings, as at this time in the proceedings, the matters do not relate to a probable loss and/or the amount or range of losses are not reasonably estimable. 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.


	2020		2019
	(in millions)
Balance at beginning of period	$	1,203	$	1,434
Provision for uncovered legal matters	10		37
Provision for covered legal matters	26		535
Reestablishment of prior accrual related to interchange multidistrict litigation	467		—
Payments for legal matters	(792)		(803)
Balance at end of period	$	914	$	1,203

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 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 Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) – Individual Merchant Actions and Note 5—U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans.


	2020		2019
	(in millions)
Balance at beginning of period	$	1,198	$	1,428
Provision for interchange multidistrict litigation	—		370
Reestablishment of prior accrual related to interchange multidistrict litigation	467		—
Payments for U.S. covered litigation	(777)		(600)
Balance at end of period	$	888	$	1,198

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 UK&I preferred stock and Europe 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.

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 (the “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 (the “Amended Settlement Agreement”), subject to court approval. 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 relating to claims by the Damages Class, 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 was calculated to be approximately $467 million, and upon receipt, was deposited into the U.S. litigation escrow account with a corresponding increase in accrued litigation to address opt-out claims.

Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing. On January 16, 2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the claims brought against them by the Injunctive Relief Class on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and failed to state a claim against the bank defendants. On November 20, 2019, the district court denied the bank defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims brought against them by the putative Injunctive Relief Class.

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. The complaint alleges violations of the antitrust laws of those jurisdictions and seeks recovery for plaintiffs as indirect purchasers. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims are not released by the Amended Settlement Agreement, Visa believes they are covered by the U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan.

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, or 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.

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.

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.

Since July 2013, in excess of 550 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) have commenced proceedings against Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and other Visa subsidiaries in the UK, Germany, Belgium and Poland 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. As of the filing date, Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and other Visa subsidiaries have settled the claims asserted by over 100 Merchants, leaving more than 400 Merchants with outstanding claims. In addition, over 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. 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 that 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 only 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 be restrictive it would not be exemptible under applicable law. In April 2018, the Court of Appeal heard the Merchant’s appeal of the decision alongside two separate Mastercard cases also involving interchange claims. 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. The Court of Appeal remitted the claim to the lower court to reconsider the exemption issue and the assessment of damages. On November 29, 2018, Visa was granted permission to appeal aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, including the question of whether Visa’s UK interchange restricted competition. On June 17, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found that Visa’s UK domestic interchange restricted competition under applicable competition law. The case will now continue before the UK Competition Appeals Tribunal to determine the lawful level of interchange and the amount, if any, the plaintiff may be entitled to recover.

In 2013, the European Commission (EC) opened an investigation against Visa Europe, based on a complaint alleging that Visa Europe’s pricing of and rules relating to Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) transactions infringe EU competition rules. On October 16, 2020, the EC informed Visa that it has closed the investigation.

Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits were filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta against Visa Canada, Mastercard and ten financial institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa and/or Mastercard credit cards. The actions allege a violation of Canada’s price-fixing law and various common law claims based on separate Visa and Mastercard conspiracies in respect of default interchange and certain of the networks’ rules. To date, five financial institutions have settled with the plaintiffs. In June 2017, Visa and Mastercard also reached settlements with the plaintiffs. Courts in each of the five provinces approved the settlements and Wal-Mart Canada and/or Home Depot of Canada Inc. filed notices of appeal of the decisions approving the settlements. The Courts of Appeal in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan rejected the appeals filed by Wal-Mart Canada and Home Depot of Canada Inc. Wal-Mart Canada and Home Depot of Canada Inc. sought leave to appeal those decisions and the Supreme Court of Canada denied

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 September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

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 September 20, 2019, plaintiffs in both cases filed motions for class certification. On October 5, 2020, plaintiffs in the case naming three financial institutions as defendants filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement reached with those financial institution defendants.

On March 13, 2012, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “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.

On November 25, 2014, Pulse Network LLC filed suit against Visa Inc. in federal district court in Texas. Pulse alleges that Visa has, among other things, monopolized and attempted to monopolize debit card network services markets. Pulse seeks unspecified treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief, including to enjoin the fixed acquirer network fee structure, Visa’s conduct regarding PIN-Authenticated Visa Debit and Visa agreements with merchants and acquirers relating to debit acceptance. On August 31, 2018, the court granted Visa’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Pulse did not have standing to pursue its claims. Pulse appealed the district court’s summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held oral argument on October 9, 2019. On June 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set the case for re-argument.

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 so-called “Liability Shift” violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

On November 4, 2019, the Bureau of Competition of the United States Federal Trade Commission (the “Bureau”) requested that Visa provide, on a voluntary basis, documents and information for 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 issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Visa requesting additional documents and information, and Visa is cooperating with the Bureau.

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 the aforementioned rules.

On November 5, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Visa from acquiring Plaid Inc., alleging that the proposed acquisition would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and would constitute monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Visa intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.