
Mastercard compensation claim
Are you one of millions due up to £70 from Mastercard – even if you've NEVER had one?
A landmark group legal case against Mastercard has settled out of court for £200 million – but a fresh legal twist means payouts will be delayed and could now be months away. While you can't claim yet, here's who's eligible, how the process is likely to work, and how much you could get.
Why Mastercard is paying compensation

At the end of last year, Mastercard agreed to pay £200 million to settle a landmark legal case against it, which had been launched on behalf of UK consumers back in 2016.
The case alleged that Mastercard's fees made it more expensive for retailers to accept card payments, and that these extra costs were passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services – meaning even those who've never had a Mastercard were potentially affected.
In May 2025, the settlement was approved by the Competition Appeals Tribunal, the specialist UK court appointed to deal with collective claims (also known as 'class actions').
An online claims portal had been set to launch within weeks of the May judgment (in other words, any day now) – but this has now been delayed due to a legal row over the settlement.
Payouts will be delayed due to a fresh legal challenge
Although Mastercard has agreed to pay £200 million, it could be months until the money is paid out. That's because a company called Innsworth, which helped fund the case, is now trying to challenge how these funds will be split.
Innsworth is a business that puts up money to support big legal claims, in return for a share of any winnings. But in this case, the firm says that the Tribunal which approved the settlement "made a series of errors in its judgment" when deciding how much of the £200 million should go to Innsworth. So it's filed a type of legal claim known as judicial review to try and get a bigger cut.
As a result of the new case, the launch of the online claims portal will be delayed – which means payouts will be delayed too. If the case is successful and Innsworth gets more of the £200 million, this could also reduce the amount of money you end up getting (depending on how many others come forward to claim).
You can't claim yet – but here's how it's likely to work
Once the legal challenge is resolved, an online claims portal will be launched on the MastercardConsumerClaim.co.uk website. You should then have at least a few months to apply using the "simple online form".
The portal will be administered by legal services firm Epiq, which was appointed due to its expertise in processing these types of claims. Epiq is separate from the solicitors that worked the case, namely Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.
You WON'T need to submit any proof to make a claim. Instead, you'll need to self-certify that you meet the criteria and provide some personal information, including: your name, date of birth, home and email addresses, telephone number and banking details (so the money can be paid to you).
We'll update this guide when the portal goes live with step-by-step info on how to do it. Make sure you're signed up to our weekly email and turn on notifications on the MSE mobile app for the latest.
Based on how the settlement process worked in the recent group legal claim against South West Trains, when you complete the form, you'll be asked to attest that the information you've given is true and correct to the best of your knowledge. The claims administrator may then do random anti-fraud spot checks.
Fraudsters often use what's in the headlines, including new reclaims and compensation schemes, as an opportunity to con you out of your money. So beware: you CAN'T claim yet – any adverts, online posts, texts or emails suggesting otherwise are likely scams.
If you're unsure about anything you see or hear regarding the claim, always check the official website MastercardConsumerClaim.co.uk before taking any action.
Who will be eligible to claim
You'll be able to claim if you meet ALL of the following criteria:
1. You lived in the UK for at least three months in a row between 1997 and 2008. For England, Northern Ireland and Wales, the exact period is 20 June 1997 and 21 June 2008. For Scotland, it's 22 May 1992 to 21 June 2008 – the period is longer in Scotland as it has different legal rules around time limits for claims.
AND
2. You were aged 16 or over for the entirety of those three months. This age requirement was put in place because those aged 16 or over were considered "more likely to have suffered loss on their own account" (in other words, they were more likely to be spending their own money), given the working age in the UK.
Crucially, this means that anyone born on or after 22 March 1992 ISN'T eligible and can't claim.
AND
3. During the same period, you bought goods or services from a firm selling in the UK – regardless of how you paid. This means you can claim even if you've never had a Mastercard.
Don't worry, you WON'T be asked for proof of this, so you won't have to dig out old receipts or bank statements. (Technically, the purchase also has to have been for personal, non-business use – but this is unlikely to be an issue for the vast majority of people.)
AND
4. You lived in the UK on 6 September 2016. This is the date the claim was filed in the courts.
AND
5. You haven't previously opted out of the legal case. If this is the first you're hearing of the case, you don't need to worry about this point – everyone who met the other criteria was opted in automatically and you would've had to fill in a form or contact the law firm to opt out.
Quick questions
Yes, provided they were alive on 6 September 2016 and met the other criteria (those who died before this date are not included in the claim).
You will need to self-certify that you are their personal or authorised representative (for example, you're the executor or administrator of their estate) or that you are their next of kin (if the person died without a will).
You likely won't need to provide proof of this in the first instance – though the claims administrator may ask for evidence later as part of its anti-fraud checks.
Yes, provided they met the above criteria. You will need to self-certify that you are the person's authorised representative (for example, you have Power of Attorney).
You likely won't need to provide proof of this in the first instance – though the claims administrator may ask for evidence later as part of its anti-fraud checks.
Can I claim on behalf of someone who has died?
Can I claim on behalf of someone who is incapacitated?
You could get up to £70 – but it may be a LOT less
While the case settled for £200 million, not all of this will be going into consumers' pockets, as some will go towards repaying the costs of the case (see the settlement funds breakdown).
Plus, crucially, the structure of the settlement means that the amount you'll ultimately get depends on how many other people make a claim. Here's the bottom line:
-
If the expected number of people claim – roughly 2.2 million based on professional estimates – each person will get £45.
-
If fewer people than expected claim, the maximum each person will get is £70, with any remaining funds going to charity The Access to Justice Foundation. This is due to a cap that was put in place to avoid people getting disproportionate payouts compared to the alleged loss they suffered.
-
If many more people than expected claim, you may only get a few quid. At the time the settlement was approved in May 2025, this scenario was seen as unlikely based on representative polling and the views of the claims administrator.
When the settlement was approved in May 2025, the money was set to be split into three pots as set out below. However, this is now in doubt after the firm that funded the case launched a legal challenge to argue for a bigger cut.
Pot 1: Half of the total amount, £100 million, is ring-fenced to be distributed to consumers who come forward. This will be divided equally among everyone eligible who claims, with a cap of £70 per person. This means that you'll likely only get the full £70 if approximately 1.4 million people or fewer claim.
Pot 2: Approximately £45.6 million is ring-fenced to go back to the litigation funding firm which bankrolled the case (without which it couldn't have gone ahead). However, this amount could increase as the exact costs, fees and expenses are yet to be finalised.
Pot 3: The remainder, approximately £54.4 million, will be split. Some will go towards covering Walter Merricks CBE's and the funding firm's additional costs, with the rest going to consumers (if enough people claim). Any money left over will go to charity The Access to Justice Foundation.
Mastercard settlement funds breakdown
Mastercard case background
Every time you buy something using a debit or credit card, a complex series of transactions happens behind the scenes to get your money to the shop's bank account.
Card networks, including Mastercard, provide technology and services that allow quick and secure card payments. Essentially, they act as middlemen between consumers, banks, retailers and any other organisations taking card payments. In return, they take a small fee on each transaction.
These card processing fees, also known as interchange fees, are the root of the legal claim against Mastercard.
In a nutshell, the claim alleged that Mastercard's fees were too high, making it more expensive for retailers to accept card payments. Retailers then allegedly passed these increased costs on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services – meaning even those who've never had a Mastercard were potentially affected.
Full timeline of the case
Here's what you need to know about how the claim developed...
It started with a legal battle in Europe
In 2007, the European Commission (the EU's main executive body) found that some of Mastercard's fees violated European laws on fair business practices. Specifically, the cross-border fees that applied, for example, when a Belgian citizen used their card to pay in a shop in France.
Visa had faced scrutiny for similar issues but was not included in the EU's decision as it had offered to make some changes to its fees proactively. American Express also wasn't included as its network works slightly differently from Mastercard and Visa.
Explaining the case at the time, senior EU official Neelie Kroes said: "[Fees] such as Mastercard's inflate the cost of card acceptance by retailers.
"Consumers foot the bill, as they risk paying twice for payment cards: once through annual fees to their bank and a second time through inflated retail prices paid not only by card users but also by customers paying cash."
As a result, the Commission ordered Mastercard to reduce its fees, which it did in 2009. However, this kicked off a long legal battle that finally concluded in 2014, when the European Court of Justice rejected Mastercard's final appeal.
The UK case followed in 2016
Off the back of the legal action in Europe, a group legal claim was launched in the UK in 2016, under the then brand-new framework established by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The case was filed at the Competition Appeals Tribunal, the specialist UK court appointed to deal with collective claims (also known as 'class actions').
Former chief ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service, Walter Merricks CBE (pictured below), was appointed as the class representative to lead the case.
When the UK claim was filed in the courts, MoneySavingExpert.com (MSE) was quoted in the court papers, as we agreed to adopt a 'watching brief' to follow the case on behalf of consumers.
Outlining our stance, we said at the time: "MSE will help the millions of consumers potentially affected to understand the claim being filed on their behalf. MSE intends to follow the case as it goes along, keeping users updated as is editorially merited."
Since then, we've published several MSE News stories with the latest developments, most recently in 2022 when the case was given the green light to go ahead.
A settlement is reached in 2025
The UK case, which originally sought £14 billion in damages, has had a bumpy ride through the courts, with Mr Merricks having to fight to even get it off the ground.
As new findings came to light along the way, the value of the claim looked increasingly precarious – especially following one key decision in June 2024.
In the summer of 2024, Mr Merricks and Mastercard entered into settlement negotiations, ultimately resulting in a £200 million settlement that was approved by the Tribunal in May 2025.
It's important to note that the Tribunal's decision was purely about how the settlement should be administered – not Mastercard's fees – and Mastercard has not admitted any liability as part of this process.
The legal basis of the UK claim was directly tied to the European case. However, as noted above, that earlier case revolved around cross-border purchases. This made things tricky, because 95% of the relevant transactions in the UK were actually domestic (in other words, made by UK residents with UK-issued cards).
This meant that, in order to succeed at trial, Mr Merricks and his legal team would have to prove that Mastercard's UK fees were caused by its European fee structures (on top of proving that merchants passed the fees on to customers through higher prices).
In February 2024, the Tribunal ruled that there was NO significant causal link between the European fees and the UK fees – a major setback for the case. Then, in June 2024, Mr Merricks was refused permission to appeal this decision – effectively torpedoing a big part of the case and ultimately leading to the settlement.
Commenting on the settlement, Mr Merricks said: "I started this case because I believed that Mastercard's fees paid by retailers for processing card transactions had been unlawfully high, and virtually all UK consumers had lost out for long periods by paying higher prices than they should have done as retailers passed on those costs.
"As the evidence came to be known through the litigation process, this was the position only in a relatively small proportion of transactions and the settlement reflects that. The settlement that has been finally approved represents a fair and just outcome for UK consumers."
In its judgment approving the settlement, the Tribunal said there were "sound reasons" for Mr Merricks to decide that the £200 million deal was in the best interests of consumers.
However, it noted that this outcome was "very far from a success" in the context of large group legal proceedings, given some 44 million people were potentially affected and the final settlement sum was only about 1.4% of the original value of the claim.