So going back a couple months, the judge posted an 88 page opinion on the rejection of Visa/MC's proposed settlement.

There was also this analysis.

Some key points on why the proposed settlement really didn't make sense for the plaintiffs (was not equitable/fair):

• The proposed relief, as discussed earlier here, is far far short of what the "best possible scenario" at trial would be. Visa/MC have tried time and time again to get the case dismissed via summary judgment and failed. This puts the plaintiffs in a strong position.
• The settlement inadequately represented the larger merchants in the class, with smaller merchants trading some relief at the expense of larger merchants. Larger merchants already negotiate custom interchange rates with the networks, so reductions on the standard rates do them no good.
• The proposed settlement allowed for 1% credit surcharging even if they didn't surcharge other cards. However, the larger retailer plaintiffs both operate in states that prohibit surcharging, and that accept American Express (which prohibits issuer level surcharging).
• Larger merchants want to take Visa/MC to court over "honor all cards" rules (e.g. that if you accept Visa, you can't say all visa except Signature/Infinite). The proposed settlement only allowed 120 day pilot programs at up to 20% of their national locations to do so.
• The proposed settlement also eliminated the "honor all wallets" rule for digital wallets, but it had an important carve out: Merchants would not be able to refuse Visa/MC issued cards in digital wallets made/operated directly by Visa/MC.
• The merchants gave expert testimony that interchange could be lowered by 100 basis points versus current in a competitive landscape (non-duopoly), which makes the four basis point reduction / 7 basis point average effective rate reduction paltry in comparison.
• The proposed settlement would have required Visa/MC to release Visa and MC from antitrust claims for five years, which the judge agreed was not fair. The judge also pointed out that Visa/MC are fine in markets like Canada and the EU where interchange is regulated far lower than the US, and that they could withstand a far great judgment at trial.

Where do we go from here?

Less than 1% of class actions ever go to trial. This case has been going on since the 2005. It stands closer to trial now.

The docket is a complete mess of complexity at over 9300 documents in sequence. Documents. Not pages. This also excludes exhibits/attachments within docket #s, which can also be multiple pages. Some third parties trying to attract merchants to file made misleading claims. Other merchants were not aware they could file without going through a third party. There's mailers to let potential merchants know if they're eligible. There's associated other lawsuits between merchants and payment processors. It is a quagmire. Some plaintiffs have other related lawsuits scheduled separately and don't want the class action trial to occur before their other trials (meaning they don't want it scheduled in April/May 2025). The Airbnb plaintiffs jointly dismissed their claims with prejudice in late July (meaning they can't go back and file claims over the same issue), suggesting they got some sort of relief from Visa/MC.)

There's also multiple parties that submitted fraudulent claims. Many used third parties for leads, and then these individuals either lied to merchants, or made up the lead (fake business, or saying a business agreed to be represented when they didn't.)

I expect to hear nothing for some time. This could go on for years to come, depending on the motions of different plaintiffs and defendant responses in turn...