Yes, consumers in the United States paid inflated ATM surcharge fees as a result of anticompetitive practices by Visa, Mastercard, and participating banks. Multiple class action lawsuits have successfully challenged these practices, resulting in settlements totaling over $430 million. Two major settlements—the Mackmin v. Visa settlement of $197.5 million and the Burke v. Visa settlement of $167.5 million—represent some of the largest recoveries for consumers harmed by network-imposed ATM surcharges.
If you used an independent ATM and paid a surcharge fee between 2007 and recent years, you may be eligible to claim compensation from these settlements. The core issue centers on how Visa and Mastercard used their network rules to prevent competition in ATM pricing. Instead of allowing independent ATM operators to set their own surcharge rates based on actual costs, the networks imposed uniform, artificially high fees that customers had to pay regardless of which card brand they carried. This meant a $3.50 surcharge for using an out-of-network ATM was treated the same whether you swiped a Visa card or a Mastercard, eliminating the price competition that would normally occur in a free market. For example, if you visited an independent ATM at a convenience store in 2015 and paid a $2.50 surcharge to withdraw $100, a portion of that fee may have been inflated by the network rules enforced by Visa and Mastercard—rules that the lawsuits successfully proved violated federal antitrust law.
Table of Contents
- How Did Visa and Mastercard Artificially Inflate ATM Surcharge Fees?
- The Antitrust Case Against Visa and Mastercard’s ATM Network Rules
- Settlement Details and Payout Status as of June 2026
- Who Can Claim From These ATM Fee Settlements and How?
- Claims Processing Delays and Common Approval Issues
- Comparing the Mackmin and Burke Settlements
- The Future of ATM Fee Regulation and Consumer Protections
- Conclusion
How Did Visa and Mastercard Artificially Inflate ATM Surcharge Fees?
Visa and Mastercard operated a system where their network rules dictated ATM surcharge pricing rather than allowing true market competition. The payment networks prohibited independent ATM operators from offering lower surcharges to customers who used cards outside their networks. This practice effectively locked in higher fees across the board, preventing consumers from accessing cheaper alternatives. Under a competitive market, operators might have offered discounts to attract customers using non-Visa/Mastercard networks, but the networks’ restrictions prevented this from happening.
The antitrust violations centered on the networks forcing uniform surcharges that reflected less the actual cost of processing the transaction and more the networks’ desire to maximize revenue. Banks participating in the networks benefited from these inflated fees, while consumers bore the cost. The lawsuits argued that by eliminating price competition through these network restraints, Visa and Mastercard violated the Sherman Act—the primary federal antitrust statute. A concrete example: if a mom-and-pop convenience store wanted to charge independent ATM users a lower $1.50 surcharge to attract more business, Visa and Mastercard’s rules prevented them from doing so, keeping all surcharges artificially high.
The Antitrust Case Against Visa and Mastercard’s ATM Network Rules
Federal courts found merit in the argument that Visa and Mastercard’s practices constituted illegal price-fixing that harmed consumers nationwide. The settlements acknowledge the networks’ responsibility in creating an environment where ATM surcharges could not be determined by normal competitive forces. Rather than litigating these claims further, both networks agreed to pay significant settlements to resolve the lawsuits—effectively admitting that their practices violated antitrust law without explicitly stating guilt. One critical limitation of these settlements is that they only apply to surcharges paid at independent ATMs, not surcharges charged by banks at their own ATMs or through proprietary networks.
Additionally, the settlements have time limits. For the Burke v. Visa settlement, coverage only applies to surcharges paid from October 24, 2007 onwards. This means consumers who paid inflated surcharges before that date are not eligible to claim. The exclusion of bank-owned ATMs from these settlements is significant because many consumers pay surcharges at bank ATMs when using a competitor’s card, a practice these lawsuits did not address.
Settlement Details and Payout Status as of June 2026
The Mackmin v. Visa settlement, valued at $197.5 million, represents a joint recovery from both Visa and Mastercard. As of June 2026, this settlement has already begun paying out claims. digital payments started being distributed on April 6, 2026. The settlement received 63,506,549 total claims, but only 296,877 claims were approved as valid for payment.
This significant gap between total claims and approved claims reveals an important reality: not all consumers who submitted claims had documentation or proof that qualified them for compensation under the settlement’s specific terms. The Burke v. Visa settlement of $167.5 million (with Visa covering $88.775 million and Mastercard covering $78.725 million) received preliminary approval in December 2025 and was still pending final approval as of June 2026. This settlement specifically targets surcharges paid at independent, nonbank ATMs across the United States. The distinction matters because it excludes ATM surcharges charged by traditional banks, focusing instead on convenience store, airport, casino, and other third-party ATM networks. Combined with a prior bank settlement of $66.74 million, the total recovery across all ATM fee class actions has exceeded $430 million.
Who Can Claim From These ATM Fee Settlements and How?
To be eligible for the Mackmin v. Visa settlement, you must have paid a surcharge fee at an independent ATM. The claim process requires documentation—either a statement showing the surcharge or a credit card statement reflecting the out-of-network ATM charge. Many claimants submitted claims without this documentation, which may explain why only 296,877 of 63.5 million claims were approved. If you have ATM receipts or bank statements showing surcharge fees from independent ATMs, gather these documents as proof before the claims deadline.
For the Burke v. Visa settlement, eligibility is limited to U.S. residents who paid surcharges at independent ATMs (not bank-owned machines) on or after October 24, 2007. The key advantage of the Burke settlement over previous recoveries is its broader scope—it applies nationwide rather than being limited to specific states. However, the disadvantage is that only independent ATMs qualify, meaning surcharges at branded ATM networks like those operated by MoneyPass or Allpoint may fall into a gray area depending on how the settlement defines “independent.” The typical payout from these settlements is modest—often $10 to $50 per approved claim—so don’t expect to recover the full amount of surcharges you paid. The settlements are designed to provide partial compensation, not full restitution.
Claims Processing Delays and Common Approval Issues
The very low approval rate in the Mackmin settlement—296,877 approved out of 63.5 million claims—points to a significant challenge: documentation requirements. Many consumers who paid ATM surcharges over the years don’t retain receipts or statements covering every transaction. Settlement administrators require proof that you paid a surcharge at a qualifying ATM, which you can provide through ATM receipts, bank statements, or credit card statements. Without documentation, claims are typically denied, even if you believe you paid surcharges.
Another limitation worth noting: settlement claims have deadlines. If you waited too long to file, or if the deadline has already passed for a particular settlement, you may no longer be eligible. The Mackmin and Burke settlements each have specific claims deadlines that must be met. Additionally, some claims are denied or reduced if the settlement administrator determines that the evidence doesn’t conclusively prove you paid the surcharge or that the surcharge was at a qualifying ATM. The appeals process exists but requires you to submit additional documentation and may take months to resolve.
Comparing the Mackmin and Burke Settlements
The Mackmin settlement ($197.5M) and Burke settlement ($167.5M) overlap in coverage but differ in important ways. Mackmin already has active payouts as of April 2026, while Burke was still pending final approval in June 2026. Mackmin received far more claims (63.5 million) but approved a much smaller percentage, suggesting tighter documentation requirements or stricter eligibility criteria.
Burke specifically targets independent ATMs and covers surcharges from October 24, 2007 forward, making it potentially broader in scope if you used independent ATMs during that entire period. One example of the difference: if you paid a $3 surcharge at a Speedway convenience store ATM in 2010, the Burke settlement would likely cover that. If you paid the same surcharge at a Fifth Third Bank ATM, the Burke settlement would not cover it, but you might have been covered under the earlier bank-focused settlement if you lived in a state included in that agreement. The overlapping nature of multiple settlements can be confusing, which is why understanding the specific coverage of each settlement matters before filing a claim.
The Future of ATM Fee Regulation and Consumer Protections
Beyond these settlements, there’s an ongoing debate about ATM fee regulation. Some consumer advocates have called for federal limits on ATM surcharges or stronger rules preventing networks from controlling pricing. However, as of 2026, no comprehensive federal cap on ATM surcharges has been enacted, meaning surcharges continue at the network operator’s discretion in most cases. The settlements with Visa and Mastercard represent a legal victory for consumers, but they don’t fundamentally change how ATM fees are set going forward—only how the past harms are remedied.
Looking ahead, the impact of these settlements may influence how payment networks approach pricing rules. If future litigation becomes more costly or if regulatory scrutiny intensifies, networks may move toward more flexible pricing models. However, consumers should not assume that ATM surcharge practices have been permanently reformed. These settlements addressed anticompetitive conduct under previous network rules, but networks continue to operate with broad discretion over ATM pricing mechanisms. Staying informed about claims deadlines and filing claims before expiration remains the most practical action consumers can take.
Conclusion
The Visa Mastercard ATM fee class action settlements represent a significant legal victory, recovering over $430 million for consumers who paid inflated surcharges due to anticompetitive practices. The Mackmin settlement of $197.5 million has already begun paying claims, and the Burke settlement of $167.5 million offers another avenue for recovery, specifically targeting independent ATM surcharges paid since October 2007. If you used independent ATMs and paid surcharge fees, you may be eligible to claim compensation, but success requires documentation and timely filing before claims deadlines.
The key takeaway is that while these settlements provide some compensation, payouts are typically modest, and approval rates are strict. If you believe you’re eligible, gather any ATM receipts, bank statements, or credit card statements showing surcharges at independent ATMs, and submit your claim to the appropriate settlement administrator before the deadline. These lawsuits prove that even major payment networks can be held accountable for anticompetitive conduct, but affected consumers must actively participate in claims to receive any recovery.