ATM Fee Antitrust Case: What to Know

What the case is about

According to Mastercard's own filing, a trade association of independent ATM operators and 13 independent operators filed the complaint in 2011 on behalf of non-bank ATM operators in the United States that set their own ATM access fee. They allege that Visa and Mastercard broke Section 1 of the Sherman Act with rules that require the access fee on a withdrawal over the Visa or Mastercard network to be no higher than the fee for a withdrawal over any other network accepted at the same machine. In plain terms, the operators say the rules stop them from rewarding cardholders, with a lower fee, for using a cheaper network. These are the operators' allegations. Visa and Mastercard dispute them.

Where the case stands in November 2026

Mastercard's filing sets out the history. In 2023 the D.C. Circuit affirmed the order certifying three classes: the ATM operators, and two groups of consumers who paid ATM fees at bank and non-bank machines. Mastercard settled with the bank-ATM consumer class in 2024, approved by the court in 2025. It settled with the non-bank ATM consumer class in 2025, with preliminary court approval in August 2026, and in August 2026 it also settled with the only independent operator that had opted out of the operator class. In September 2026 the district court dismissed the operators' class complaint, which Law360 also reported. In early November 2026, Law360 reported that the operators gave notice they will ask the D.C. Circuit to revive the case. An appeal can take a long time, and nobody can say how it will end.

Why this is not the merchant swipe fee settlement

This case is about the fee an ATM charges a person for a cash withdrawal. It is a different case from the Visa and Mastercard merchant settlement over card acceptance fees and surcharging, and from newer merchant lawsuits over swipe fees. What these cases have in common is that they challenge network rules on how prices can be set. Your card processing fees are set by your agreement with your processor, and they are what your statement shows, whatever happens in any of these cases.

What it means if you host an ATM

If you have an ATM on site, check who sets the access fee. On a free-placement machine, the ATM company owns the machine and usually sets the fee, and you earn a share under your placement agreement. If you own or lease the machine, you or your processor set the fee within the network rules that apply today. The dismissal does not change those rules, and the appeal does not either while it runs. Keep your placement or processing agreement and your monthly ATM settlement reports. They show how many withdrawals ran and what fee was charged, and records like these matter if a court process ever asks for them.

What it means for card acceptance

Nothing changes at your counter. A case about ATM access fees does not change the interchange, network fees or markup on your card sales. What it does show is that card network pricing rules are being argued over in more than one court at once. The practical step does not depend on any case: know your effective rate, which is your total processing fees divided by your total card sales, and question any fee line you cannot explain.

What changes for multi-location and enterprise operators

Operators with ATMs at several sites often have different machines on different agreements: some on free placement, some owned, some leased, sometimes with more than one ATM company. Keep a list of every machine, who owns it, who sets the access fee and which agreement covers it, and make sure finance can pull ATM settlement reports by site and by year. Large operators and their lawyers sometimes take their own position in class cases, as the one operator that opted out did here. That is a decision for your legal counsel. This article is general information about reported court filings, not legal advice, and we are not part of the case.