A federal court in Washington, D.C., has approved a $167.5 million settlement between Visa and Mastercard over allegedly anticompetitive ATM fee practices. The settlement addresses claims that the payment networks’ non-discrimination rules unfairly restricted competition among ATM operators, ultimately forcing consumers to pay inflated surcharge fees when using out-of-network ATMs. Visa will contribute approximately $88.8 million (53 percent of the total), while Mastercard will contribute approximately $78.7 million (47 percent), though neither company admitted wrongdoing. The settlement stems from the case Burke v. Visa and Mastercard, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.
The lawsuit alleged that both payment networks used their rules to prevent ATM operators from charging different fees based on which card networks were used, thereby keeping ATM surcharges artificially high across the industry. For consumers, this means the settlement could provide compensation for out-of-pocket fees paid at independent ATMs—the machines you find in convenience stores, bars, and other retail locations that aren’t directly operated by banks. The settlement applies to anyone who paid an unreimbursed surcharge or access fee at an independent, non-bank ATM in the United States between October 24, 2007, and the date of preliminary approval. This is a significant window, covering nearly two decades of potential out-of-network ATM usage. However, consumers will need to file claims to receive their share of the settlement fund, and the process is still moving through the court system.
Table of Contents
- How the $167.5 Million ATM Fee Settlement Affects Bank Customers
- Visa and Mastercard’s Role in the Settlement
- Who Qualifies for the Settlement
- What Consumers Need to Know About the Claims Process
- Limitations and Common Misconceptions
- Historical Context of ATM Fee Disputes
- What’s Next for the Settlement
- Conclusion
How the $167.5 Million ATM Fee Settlement Affects Bank Customers
The settlement targets what consumers experience regularly: the $2 to $3.50 surcharge that appears when you withdraw money from an ATM outside your bank’s network. These fees have been a persistent annoyance for account holders, particularly in rural areas or when traveling where your bank’s ATMs aren’t readily available. The lawsuit claimed that Visa and Mastercard’s network rules artificially prevented ATM operators from competing on fees based on card type, meaning you paid the same high surcharge whether you used Visa, Mastercard, or any other card network. For example, if you traveled and withdrew $200 from a gas station ATM five times during a month, you might have paid $10 to $17.50 in surcharges alone.
Over the settlement period spanning nearly two decades, millions of consumers accumulated substantial charges from routine ATM usage. The settlement fund is designed to return money to those affected consumers, though the exact per-person payout will depend on how many eligible claims are filed and approved. The settlement’s impact extends beyond just the money returned. If approved, it could signal that payment networks face real legal consequences for rules that restrict market competition. This might eventually lead to more competitive ATM pricing and fewer customers facing sticker shock when they need cash outside their bank’s network.
Visa and Mastercard’s Role in the Settlement
Visa’s contribution of $88.8 million represents the larger portion of the settlement, reflecting its dominant market position in payment processing. Mastercard’s $78.7 million contribution covers the remainder of the $167.5 million fund. Importantly, neither company admitted to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement terms—a common feature in antitrust settlements where defendants agree to pay to resolve claims without accepting liability. This distinction matters legally but doesn’t change the practical outcome for eligible consumers seeking compensation. The underlying allegation centers on what’s known as non-discrimination rules within the Visa and Mastercard networks.
These rules reportedly prevented ATM operators from varying surcharges based on which payment network a customer was using. In a truly competitive market, ATM operators could theoretically charge different fees to Visa and Mastercard users, or offer discounts to encourage network diversity. The lawsuit contended that Visa and Mastercard’s rules prevented this type of market-driven competition, keeping ATM fees uniformly high regardless of the card network involved. Both payment networks have stated they continue to work with regulators and industry participants to ensure their rules operate fairly. The settlement does not require them to change their operating procedures, though ongoing regulatory scrutiny may eventually influence how these networks structure their ATM-related policies in the future.
Who Qualifies for the Settlement
To qualify for the $167.5 million settlement, you must have paid an unreimbursed surcharge or access fee at an independent, non-bank ATM in the United States after October 24, 2007, through the date of preliminary court approval. “Independent” ATMs are those operated by standalone ATM networks or non-bank operators—essentially any ATM that isn’t directly run by a traditional bank. This includes the ATMs you find in convenience stores, grocery stores, bars, restaurants, and other retail locations. A critical limitation is that you must not have had your fee reimbursed by your own bank.
Many banks offer ATM fee reimbursement programs as part of premium checking accounts or as a general account benefit, meaning customers of those banks would not qualify for settlement compensation on reimbursed fees. Additionally, the settlement only covers surcharges you paid out of pocket—not fees that were absorbed by a third party or business you were working for. As of May 2026, the settlement is pending preliminary court approval, meaning the claims process has not yet officially begun. Once approved, notice will be distributed to eligible consumers, and there will be a defined period to file claims with documentation showing your ATM charges during the settlement period. Without proof of payment—such as bank statements or ATM receipts—you may face challenges in validating your claim.
What Consumers Need to Know About the Claims Process
The settlement fund will be distributed through a claims process that hasn’t yet been finalized, but will likely require you to provide evidence of ATM surcharges paid during the eligible period. This evidence typically includes bank statements, ATM receipts, or other documentation showing the date, amount, and location of out-of-network ATM fees. If you’ve kept detailed records of your banking activity, you’re in a stronger position to file a valid claim. The process will probably operate similarly to other major settlement claims, where consumers either submit individual claims for specific amounts or receive pro-rata payments from a common fund. In a pro-rata distribution, the settlement amount is divided equally among all eligible claimants, or weighted by the number of documented transactions.
Individual claims, by contrast, require you to prove exactly how much you paid in surcharges and be compensated for those amounts. The final claims process details will be announced once the court grants preliminary approval. One important consideration: the settlement fund only totals $167.5 million, and if millions of consumers file claims, the per-person payout could be modest—perhaps $20 to $100 per person, depending on how many eligible claims are submitted. Additionally, there will likely be administrative fees and attorney fees deducted from the settlement fund before distributions are made, further reducing the amount available to consumers. Managing expectations about payout size is important before you invest time in filing a claim.
Limitations and Common Misconceptions
A major limitation is that this settlement only covers independent ATMs, not ATMs operated directly by major banks. If you paid fees to your own bank for accessing another bank’s ATM, that fee typically falls outside this settlement’s scope, since the lawsuit focused on independent ATM operators’ alleged inability to compete on fees. Understanding this distinction is crucial before filing a claim based on in-network fees paid to your bank. Another misconception is that the settlement proves Visa and Mastercard violated antitrust law. Because neither company admitted liability, the settlement is best understood as a business decision to avoid prolonged litigation rather than confirmation of wrongdoing.
Courts have not ruled that the companies’ practices were actually illegal, only that both parties agreed a settlement was preferable to continuing the case. This matters if you’re expecting vindication of consumer rights—the settlement is financial compensation, not a declaration of corporate malfeasance. Additionally, some consumers believe that anyone who used an out-of-network ATM during the settlement period automatically qualifies for payment. In reality, you must file a claim and provide documentation to receive compensation. The settlement won’t automatically appear in your bank account; you’ll need to actively participate in the claims process, which could take months or years to fully resolve.
Historical Context of ATM Fee Disputes
ATM surcharges have been a source of consumer friction since ATM networks began charging for out-of-network access in the 1990s. Initially, consumers could withdraw from any bank’s ATM without penalty. As networks began to consolidate and banks competed more aggressively, surcharges emerged as a revenue stream. By the 2010s, surcharge fees had become standard, with independent ATM operators charging $2 to $4 per transaction on top of any fees charged by the customer’s bank. The Burke lawsuit is one of several antitrust challenges to payment network practices over the past two decades.
Regulatory bodies, including the Federal Reserve and various state attorneys general, have periodically scrutinized whether Visa and Mastercard’s rules stifle competition in ways that harm consumers. This settlement represents one of the few instances where these payment networks have faced significant financial consequences for alleged anticompetitive behavior, though settlements rarely force operational changes. Consumer pressure to reduce ATM fees has mounted, particularly as digital payments have grown. Some major banks have responded by expanding their ATM networks, offering fee reimbursement programs, or loosening restrictions on ATM access for customers. However, independent ATM operators continue to charge surcharges, and consumers using those ATMs still face out-of-pocket costs that this settlement aims to address.
What’s Next for the Settlement
As of May 2026, the settlement is awaiting preliminary court approval from the federal judge overseeing the Burke case. Once preliminary approval is granted—which typically happens within weeks to a few months of settlement filing—the court will establish a formal claims period during which eligible consumers can submit documentation and file claims. Notice will be distributed through postcard mailings, email, advertising, and a dedicated settlement website.
After the claims period closes, the settlement administrator will review all submitted claims, verify eligibility, and calculate individual payouts. This process often takes 6 to 12 months or longer, depending on the complexity of claims and the volume of submissions. Once distributions are approved by the judge, payments will be disbursed directly to eligible claimants via check, electronic transfer, or other methods specified in the settlement agreement. Throughout this timeline, you can monitor progress through the official settlement website, which will be announced once preliminary approval is granted.
Conclusion
The $167.5 million settlement between Visa and Mastercard addresses a longstanding consumer complaint about out-of-network ATM surcharges. Visa’s $88.8 million contribution and Mastercard’s $78.7 million contribution will be distributed to eligible consumers who paid unreimbursed surcharges at independent ATMs between October 24, 2007, and the date of preliminary court approval. While the settlement doesn’t constitute an admission of liability from either payment network, it represents one of the few instances where these networks have faced significant financial consequences for allegedly anticompetitive behavior.
If you believe you qualify for compensation, the key steps are to gather documentation of out-of-network ATM fees paid during the eligible period and watch for official notice from the settlement administrator. Once preliminary approval is granted and the claims process begins, you’ll have a limited window to submit your claim. Though individual payouts may be modest depending on claim volume, this settlement offers an opportunity to recoup some of the costs you incurred from routine out-of-network ATM usage over the past two decades.