Millions of Americans who paid fees at independent ATMs may claim a share of a $167.5 million Visa and Mastercard settlement, without the card giants admitting any wrongdoing.
A proposed class-action deal tied to Burke v. Visa Inc. would create a $167.5 million fund for people who paid access fees at independent cash machines in the United States.
Daily Mail reporting describes the pact as covering qualifying withdrawals spanning nearly two decades, with Visa putting up $88.8 million and Mastercard $78.7 million. Both networks deny the allegations and agreed to settle without admitting liability or wrongdoing.
The suit alleged Visa and Mastercard rules blocked independent ATM operators from charging lower prices when a transaction could run over a competing network. Plaintiffs said those restrictions left consumers paying more to pull cash out of machines that sit outside bank branches.
That is the core charge: network rules that, the lawsuit claimed, cramped price competition on a fee ordinary people see every time they grab cash at a convenience store, gas station, hotel, or bar.
The proposed settlement reaches back to October 24, 2007, and runs through August 14, 2026. Anyone who paid an access fee at an independent U.S. ATM in that span may qualify, if their own bank did not fully reimburse the charge.
Eligibility turns on a few bright lines. The withdrawal had to use an ATM card or a PIN debit card. Credit-card transactions, cash advances, and prepaid cards are out. The fee had to stick, full bank reimbursement knocks a person out of the class for that trip to the machine.
No fixed check amount is promised. Payouts will depend on how many valid claims come in and how many qualifying transactions each claimant reports. “Millions of US consumers” could be eligible, which also means the pot gets split more ways if the claims flood arrives.
Consumers who want a cut must submit a claim by February 10, 2027, online or by mail. A court hearing on final approval is set for February 17, 2027. Until a judge signs off, the money stays proposed, not guaranteed.
The settlement administrator can be reached at 1-866-893-1052. Claims are also routed through the official settlement site at nonbankatmsurchargesettlement.com. That portal is the practical door for people who kept receipts, bank statements, or even a decent memory of how often they used non-bank machines.
Independent ATMs are the everyday machines outside the big bank networks, the ones in corner stores and roadside stops, including locations such as Manhattan’s Chinatown. For years, those surcharges have been a quiet tax on people who needed cash fast and did not have a nearby branch.
Separate class actions over related ATM fee issues have also been filed in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan. The national settlement does not erase the wider pattern: multiple courts have been asked to examine how the major card networks set the rules that govern what independent operators can charge.
Visa and Mastercard remain the dominant rails for card payments in America. The lawsuit framed their ATM rules as restraints that violated federal and state antitrust laws. The companies’ answer, in this deal, is a large payment paired with a flat denial of wrongdoing, a familiar endgame in complex commercial litigation.
For claimants, the homework is simple and time-bound. Gather what proof exists of independent-ATM fees between late 2007 and mid-August 2026. Confirm the bank did not eat the full surcharge. File before February 10, 2027. Miss the date and the fund moves on without you.
Payment size will not be known until the claims are tallied. People who used non-bank machines often over many years stand to report more qualifying trips than one-off users. Still, the settlement text makes plain that the math follows the volume of approved claims, not a pre-set per-person prize.
At bottom, the complaint said independent operators could have offered cheaper access when another network was available, and that Visa and Mastercard rules got in the way. Consumers, not the networks, absorbed the difference at the keypad.
Whether a judge grants final approval in February will close this chapter. Parallel cases in four states show the same fee fight is not confined to a single docket. For now, the live question for households is narrower and practical: did you pay an unreimbursed surcharge at an independent U.S. ATM in the covered years, and will you file on time?
When dominant card networks are accused of boxing out cheaper cash access, working people are the ones who paid at the machine, and they should not leave settlement money unclaimed out of habit or delay.