The $118.8 Billion “Tax”: Judge Approves $38 Billion Visa/Mastercard Settlement—But the Fight Over Swipe Fees Is Far From Over

 

The $118.8 Billion “Tax”: Judge Approves $38 Billion Visa/Mastercard Settlement—But the Fight Over Swipe Fees Is Far From Over

**Subtitle:** *From a 0.1% rate cut to a 30-year monopoly, Walmart is calling the deal a “gift” to the card giants. Here is why your local coffee shop is still paying 2.36% to process your latte—and why Congress may finally step in.*

**Reading Time:** 8 Minutes | **Category:** Economy & Law

## Introduction: The Fee You Pay, Even When You Don't See It

You walk into a coffee shop. You order a latte. You tap your card. The screen says $5.50. You walk away.

What you don't see is the additional $0.13 that the coffee shop pays to Visa, Mastercard, and the issuing bank. That $0.13 is the **swipe fee**—also known as the interchange fee. It is the hidden tax on every credit card transaction. And it adds up to a staggering **$118.8 billion** per year .

For nearly 20 years, merchants have been fighting these fees in court. They argued that Visa and Mastercard conspired to fix prices, violated antitrust laws, and forced merchants to accept all cards (including high-fee rewards cards) under the “Honor All Cards” rule .

On June 9, 2026, a federal judge in Brooklyn gave preliminary approval to a **$38 billion settlement** that would end that litigation . The card networks agreed to lower swipe fees by a modest 0.1 percentage point for five years and cap standard consumer credit rates at 1.25% for eight years . They also agreed to give merchants more flexibility to surcharge customers and to reject certain categories of high-cost cards .

But the settlement is far from universally celebrated. Walmart called it a “gift” to Visa and Mastercard . The National Retail Federation (NRF) said the changes are “illusory” . And a coalition of small business groups warned that the deal would lock in anticompetitive conduct for years to come .

In this deep-dive, we will break down the economics of swipe fees, explain why the “Honor All Cards” rule is the key to the whole case, and tell you what this settlement means for your favorite local businesses—and your own wallet.

> **The Bottom Line Up Front:** The settlement lowers fees by a tiny fraction, caps rates, and gives merchants new surcharging rights. But the card networks still control the market. The real solution may have to come from Congress—not the courts.

## Part 1: The $118.8 Billion “Tax” – How Swipe Fees Work

To understand the controversy, you have to understand the economics of the card industry.

### The Four-Party Model

Every credit card transaction involves four parties:

1.  **The Cardholder** (you)

2.  **The Merchant** (the coffee shop)

3.  **The Acquiring Bank** (the merchant’s bank)

4.  **The Issuing Bank** (the bank that issued your card)

When you swipe your card, the merchant pays a **swipe fee** (also called an interchange fee). That fee is split among the acquiring bank, the issuing bank, and the card network (Visa or Mastercard) .

The fee is typically calculated as a percentage of the transaction—averaging **2.36%** in the United States . That is roughly **eight times higher** than the fees paid in Europe, where regulatory caps are in place .

### The $118.8 Billion Number

In 2025, Visa and Mastercard alone collected **$118.8 billion** in swipe fees from U.S. merchants . That is up from $111.2 billion in 2024 and $25.6 billion in 2009 .

For a small restaurant with profit margins of just 5%, the swipe fee on a $50 meal is $1.18. The restaurant’s profit on that meal is $2.50. The card networks are making nearly half as much as the restaurant itself .

### The Rewards Card “Subsidy”

Here is the dirty secret of the rewards economy. Those airline miles, cash-back points, and hotel points are not free. They are funded by swipe fees .

When you use a premium rewards card, the merchant pays a higher interchange fee—often 3% or more . That higher fee funds the rewards that the bank gives you. The system is a transfer from merchants (and, ultimately, all consumers) to the cardholders who use rewards cards .

### The “Honor All Cards” Rule

The key to the card networks’ power is the **“Honor All Cards” rule**. This rule required merchants that accept Visa or Mastercard to accept **every** Visa or Mastercard, regardless of the fee .

A merchant could not say, “I accept standard Visa cards, but not your fancy Visa Signature Rewards card with the 3% fee.” It was all or nothing.

This rule gave the card networks enormous leverage. Merchants could not reject high-fee cards without rejecting the entire network, which would mean losing the majority of their customers .

| Metric | Value |

| :--- | :--- |

| **Total U.S. Swipe Fees (2025)** | $118.8 billion |

| **Average Fee per Transaction** | 2.36% |

| **US vs. Europe Fee Ratio** | ~8x higher |

| **Typical Restaurant Profit Margin** | ~5% |

*Sources: *

**The Human Touch:** For the small business owner, the swipe fee is not an abstraction. It is the difference between staying open and closing down. For every $100 in sales, $2.36 goes to the card networks. That is money that could have gone to a new stove, an extra employee, or a family vacation. The settlement is supposed to fix that. Critics say it is a band-aid on a bullet wound.

## Part 2: The $38 Billion Deal – What the Settlement Actually Does

The settlement, first announced in November 2025, was revised upward from an earlier $30 billion proposal that a judge rejected as “paltry” .

### The Fee Reductions

The core of the deal is a reduction in swipe fees:

| Fee Change | Duration | Details |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **0.1 percentage point reduction** | 5 years | Applies to combined average effective interchange rate |

| **1.25% cap on standard consumer credit rates** | 8 years | Applies to posted standard consumer credit rates |

### The “Honor All Cards” Reform

The settlement would modify the “Honor All Cards” rule. Merchants could now choose to accept or reject **categories** of cards:

- **Standard consumer cards** (the lowest fee)

- **Premium consumer cards** (rewards cards, higher fee)

- **Commercial cards** (business cards, highest fee)

A merchant could decide to accept standard cards but reject premium rewards cards. However, the merchant could not reject cards from a specific **issuer** (e.g., “I accept all Chase cards but not Citibank cards”).

### The Surcharging Expansion

The settlement also gives merchants more flexibility to impose **surcharges** on customers who pay with credit cards. Surcharges could be up to 3% of the transaction, with disclosure requirements .

This is a double-edged sword. Surcharging gives merchants a tool to recover swipe fees. But it also shifts the cost directly to the customer, which could drive customers away.

### The Savings Estimate

Two economists hired by the plaintiffs—Nobel Prize winner **Joseph Stiglitz** and University of Washington professor **Keith Leffler**—estimated that the changes could save merchants **$38 billion by 2031** and provide **$224 billion of benefits overall**, including to consumers .

| Reform | Duration | Impact |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Fee Reduction** | 5 years | $38B estimated savings by 2031 |

| **Rate Cap** | 8 years | 1.25% ceiling on standard consumer credit |

| **Surcharge Rights** | Permanent | Up to 3% surcharge on credit transactions |

| **Card Category Selection** | Permanent | Accept/reject premium or commercial cards |

*Sources: *

**The Human Touch:** For a small business owner, the 0.1 percentage point reduction is meaningful. On $100,000 in annual credit card sales, that is $100 in savings. It is not nothing. But it is not the $1,000 or $2,000 that the rising cost of goods and labor is eating away.

## Part 3: The Opposition – Why Walmart and the NRF Say It’s a “Gift”

The settlement is not universally celebrated. Some of the largest merchants and trade groups are fiercely opposed.

### Walmart’s Blistering Critique

Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, called the settlement a **“gift”** to Visa and Mastercard . The company argued that the deal would allow the card networks to “lock in anticompetitive conduct that has persisted for more than 30 years ‘without fear of being challenged by large national merchants’” .

Walmart’s objection is structural, not numerical. The company believes that the settlement does not change the underlying market power of Visa and Mastercard. It just slightly reduces the price.

### The NRF’s “Window Dressing”

The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade group, was equally scathing.

“This proposal is all window dressing and no substance,” said NRF General Counsel Stephanie Martz . “The reduction in swipe fees doesn’t begin to go far enough, and the change in the honor-all-cards rule would accomplish nothing.”

Martz pointed to a practical reality: “You can’t just suddenly tell more than 80% of your card customers you’re not going to take their cards. You would lose a lot of business” .

### The “Illusory” Choice

The Texas Restaurant Association raised a similar concern. For a restaurant, rejecting premium rewards cards is not a viable option. Most of their customers carry those cards. The choice is not between accepting high fees or rejecting them. It is between accepting high fees or losing customers .

“They want to be able to go to the Texas Capitol and Washington, D.C., and say, ‘Don’t worry about this … nothing to see here,’” said Kelsey Erickson Streufert, the association’s chief public affairs officer . “That would be a real disservice … to small businesses and consumers.”

### The “Release” Problem

Perhaps the most significant objection is legal. The settlement would release Visa and Mastercard from **all past and future antitrust claims** related to swipe fees . Merchants who accept the deal cannot sue again for the same conduct.

For Walmart and other large merchants, that is a dealbreaker. They believe that the card networks’ conduct is still anticompetitive and that the $38 billion settlement is a fraction of what they could win in court.

| Opponent | Primary Objection |

| :--- | :--- |

| **Walmart** | “Gift” to Visa/Mastercard; locks in anticompetitive conduct |

| **National Retail Federation** | “Window dressing”; fee reduction insufficient |

| **Texas Restaurant Association** | Rejecting rewards cards not viable; settlement a “disservice” |

| **Merchants Payments Coalition** | Does not address underlying market power |

**The Human Touch:** For the independent bookstore owner, the choice is stark. Accept the settlement and get a small fee reduction. Or reject it and hope for a better outcome in court. The lawyers will make that decision for them. The settlement is class action; merchants are automatically included unless they opt out. Most will not opt out. They will not even know they have a choice.

## Part 4: The Congressional “Sword” – The Credit Card Competition Act

If the courts cannot fix the swipe fee problem, Congress may try.

### The Durbin-Marshall Bill

The **Credit Card Competition Act**, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), would require large banks to enable at least two unaffiliated networks on every credit card .

Currently, Visa and Mastercard dominate the market. The bill would force banks to offer a competing network—such as Discover, American Express, or a new entrant—alongside Visa or Mastercard .

### The Routing Fight

The bill is supported by retailers, who argue that competition would lower fees. It is opposed by Visa, Mastercard, and large banks, who argue that it would disrupt fraud prevention and threaten consumer privacy .

The Texas Restaurant Association has been a vocal supporter. “Texans are really looking to support their local businesses this holiday season,” Streufert said . “But to the extent that you’re able, consider how you pay.”

### The Texas Angle

Texas has been a battleground for swipe fee reform. In the 2025 legislative session, state lawmakers considered a bill that would have prohibited swipe fees on the portion of a transaction representing state and local taxes . The bill did not pass, but the debate continues.

“Texas has taken a leading role in the national debate,” Streufert said .

| Legislation | Status | Key Provision |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Credit Card Competition Act** | Pending | Require two unaffiliated networks per card |

| **Texas SB 2026** | Did not pass | Exclude taxes/tips from swipe fee calculation |

*Sources: *

**The Human Touch:** For the small business owner, the legislative route is slow and uncertain. But it offers the possibility of a structural fix, not just a temporary fee reduction. The question is whether Congress has the will to take on the powerful card industry lobby.

## Part 5: The Consumer Impact – Will You Pay More or Less?

The settlement’s impact on consumers is ambiguous.

### The Lower Price Argument

Proponents argue that lower swipe fees will lead to lower prices for consumers. If merchants pay less to process cards, they can pass those savings along .

But the fee reduction is tiny—0.1 percentage points. On a $50 meal, that is 5 cents. That is not going to show up in lower menu prices.

### The Surcharge Reality

The settlement allows merchants to surcharge up to 3% for credit card payments . Some merchants will take advantage of this. If they do, consumers will see a separate line item on their receipt: “Credit card surcharge – 3%.”

For a $50 meal, that is $1.50. That is real money.

### The Rewards Card “Crackdown”

The settlement gives merchants the option to reject premium rewards cards . If enough merchants exercise that option, the value of rewards cards could decline.

Why would you pay an annual fee for a card that gives you airline miles if the coffee shop down the street won’t accept it? The settlement could accelerate a shift away from rewards-heavy cards .

### The Cash Discount Workaround

Many merchants have already adopted a “cash discount” model. They post a price, then offer a discount for cash. This is legally distinct from a surcharge, but economically identical .

Systems like those offered by Better Payment Solutions allow merchants to save an average of **$7,500 annually**, with some reporting savings up to $100,000 per year .

| Impact | Direction | Likelihood |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Lower Prices** | Slightly lower | Low (fee reduction too small) |

| **Surcharges** | Higher out-of-pocket for credit users | Moderate |

| **Rewards Card Value** | Lower | Low (merchants unlikely to reject popular cards) |

| **Cash Discounts** | More common | High (already trending) |

*Sources: *

**The Human Touch:** For the consumer, the settlement is likely to be invisible. You will not see lower prices. You might see surcharges. You might see more “cash discount” signs. But the underlying system—dominated by Visa and Mastercard—will remain unchanged.

## Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

**Q: What is a swipe fee?**

A: A swipe fee (also called an interchange fee) is the amount a merchant pays to process a credit card transaction. The fee is typically a percentage of the transaction—averaging 2.36% in the United States .

**Q: How much do merchants pay in swipe fees annually?**

A: In 2025, Visa and Mastercard merchants paid **$118.8 billion** in swipe fees .

**Q: What does the $38 billion settlement do?**

A: The settlement lowers swipe fees by 0.1 percentage point for five years and caps standard consumer credit rates at 1.25% for eight years . It also allows merchants to surcharge credit card payments (up to 3%) and to reject certain categories of cards .

**Q: Why is Walmart opposed to the settlement?**

A: Walmart called the settlement a “gift” to Visa and Mastercard, arguing that it locks in anticompetitive conduct without fundamentally changing the card networks’ market power .

**Q: What is the “Honor All Cards” rule?**

A: This rule required merchants that accept Visa or Mastercard to accept every Visa or Mastercard, regardless of the fee. The settlement modifies the rule, allowing merchants to accept or reject **categories** of cards .

**Q: Will this settlement lower prices for consumers?**

A: Unlikely. The fee reduction is tiny (0.1 percentage points), and merchants are more likely to absorb the savings than pass them along .

**Q: Will I see surcharges at my favorite restaurants?**

A: Possibly. The settlement allows merchants to surcharge up to 3% for credit card payments. Some merchants will exercise this right .

## Conclusion: The Band-Aid and the Bullet Wound

We started this article with a number: $118.8 billion. That is the annual cost of swipe fees to American merchants.

We end with a different number: **0.1%** . That is the fee reduction the settlement provides.

The $38 billion settlement is a landmark in the decades-long legal battle between merchants and card networks. It is the largest antitrust settlement in history. It provides meaningful—if modest—relief.

But it does not solve the underlying problem. Visa and Mastercard still dominate the market. Swipe fees are still eight times higher than in Europe. And merchants still have little negotiating power.

**For the Merchant:**

The settlement offers a small fee reduction and new surcharging rights. But the real solution may have to come from Congress. Support the Credit Card Competition Act. It is your best hope for structural reform.

**For the Consumer:**

Do not expect lower prices. Do expect to see more “cash discount” signs and, possibly, credit card surcharges. And consider using cash or debit for small purchases. The fees on debit cards are capped by federal law .

**For the Investor:**

Visa and Mastercard have survived this challenge. The settlement is manageable. The real threat is the Credit Card Competition Act. Watch that bill closely. It could change the industry forever.

**The Bottom Line:**

The $38 billion settlement is a band-aid on a bullet wound. The fee reduction is tiny. The structural reforms are modest. The card networks still control the market.

The fight over swipe fees is not over. It has just entered a new phase.

---

**#Visa #Mastercard #SwipeFees #Interchange #Antitrust #CreditCards #SmallBusiness #Retail**

---

*Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or financial advice. The settlement is subject to final court approval.*