Visa and Mastercard settled a lawsuit over higher ATM fees for $167.5 million, money eligible Americans can claim if they paid surcharges at independent machines since 2007.
Millions of cash withdrawals at gas-station and convenience-store machines may now qualify for a slice of a major card-network payout. The Sun reported that Mastercard and Visa have agreed to settle claims that customers faced higher fees at certain automated teller machines across the United States.
The deal creates a $167.5 million fund for people who paid a surcharge or access fee to take cash from a deposit account at an independent ATM, a machine not owned by a bank or financial institution. Final court approval is still required before anyone is paid.
Both companies denied wrongdoing. The settlement does not admit liability. That pattern is familiar whenever large payment networks face pressure over the fees ordinary Americans meet at the machine.
The official settlement page lays out a broad national class. Coverage runs from October 24, 2007, through August 14, 2026, and reaches the United States including its territories.
Generally, you are included if you were charged a surcharge or access fee to withdraw cash from your deposit account with an ATM or PIN-debit card at an independent ATM. Gas stations and convenience stores are the examples the notice highlights.
"Generally, you are included in the Settlement as part of the Nationwide Class if you are in the United States, were charged a surcharge (or access fee) to withdraw cash from your deposit account using an ATM or pin-debit card at an independent ATM (an ATM not owned by a bank or financial institution) located in the United States (including its territories)."
Separate statewide classes may also apply in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan. The same notice states that point directly.
"You may also be included as part of the Statewide Classes for California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan."
Credit-card cash advances and prepaid-card transactions are out. So are fees a bank already reimbursed. The claim window is long, but the rules are narrow enough that careless filings will fail.
Readers tracking the same consumer fight can also review our earlier coverage of how Americans who paid ATM fees since 2007 can seek a cut of the identical Visa and Mastercard pot.
The deadline to file is February 10, 2027. No checks go out until a court grants final approval. That sequence matters: the headline number is large, yet the money stays locked until a judge clears the deal.
Eligible people must use the online claim form on the official settlement site. Paper trails help. A bank statement or receipt showing the surcharge at a non-bank machine is the kind of proof that survives review when class administrators start sorting real claims from noise.
How individual awards will be calculated is not spelled out in the material released so far. Class size, valid claim volume, and administrative costs will drive the math once the court acts. Until then, the $167.5 million figure is a ceiling on the pot, not a promise of any particular check.
Parallel reporting on the same agreement appears in our note that Visa and Mastercard agree to a $167.5 million settlement over independent ATM fees.
The lawsuit targeted surcharges at ATMs outside bank ownership. That is the network of machines people hit when they need cash at a corner store, a fuel pump, or a roadside stop, places where the fee often feels unavoidable.
For years, those access charges have functioned as a quiet tax on people who still use cash. The settlement does not rewrite ATM pricing. It offers a back-end recovery path for a defined set of past and near-term transactions while the card brands maintain they broke no rules.
Consumer-payment fights keep returning to the same pressure point. Related coverage of how cash rounding and credit card surcharges reshape what Americans pay at the register shows how fee design follows shoppers from the pump to the checkout lane.
Mastercard and Visa remain the dominant rails for card payments in the United States. Settling without an admission of liability lets them close litigation risk, fund a claims process, and continue operating under the same public posture: the fees were lawful, the case is resolved, and business proceeds.
That incentive structure is plain. Prolonged trials create disclosure and political exposure. A nine-figure settlement with no liability finding is cheaper than years of discovery over how independent ATM surcharges were set and shared.
Policy fights over the same networks are not limited to ATM cases. Credit-union leaders have separately warned that payment security could weaken under a proposed credit card bill aimed at the card brands’ market position.
Visa’s own corporate news cycle has stayed busy on other fronts, including a recent round of job cuts the company tied to artificial intelligence while posting strong profits, a reminder that the network’s scale and cost structure keep shifting even as fee litigation lands in the rearview.
None of that background changes the claim basics. The eligible period began in 2007. It runs into 2026. The filing cutoff is early 2027. Independent ATMs only. Deposit-account cash withdrawals. No prior bank reimbursement. No prepaid or credit-cash-advance traffic.
People who paid those surcharges at non-bank machines should treat the notice as a paperwork deadline, not a windfall guarantee. Courts still have to approve the deal. Administrators still have to validate claims. The card companies still say they did nothing wrong.
Working Americans who needed cash at a convenience store should not have to underwrite endless surcharge games, and when a settlement finally opens the door, they should walk through it before the window shuts.