Post on 04-May-2018
Litigation Trends Impacting Processors and ISOs: How to Keep You and Your Company Safe
Edward A. Marshall and Theresa Y. KananenMAC West Regional | September 7, 2017
2
Litigation Trends Impacting Processors and ISOs
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Enforcement Actions
EMV Litigation Merchant Class-Action Litigation
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
FTC and CFPB Enforcement Actions
4
Ongoing FTC and CFPB Activity
Historical FTC Activity – CIDs– Asset Freeze Orders and Contempt
Actions (depleted reserves)– TSR Claims (making it unlawful to
provide “substantial assistance” to telemarketing merchant while “consciously avoiding knowing” that the merchant is engaged in deceptive practices)
– Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce”)
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
5
Ongoing FTC and CFPB Activity
Growing CFPB Threat– 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. §
5536(a)(1)(B) (making it unlawful for “any . . . service provider to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice”)
– 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. §5536(a)(3) (making it unlawful for “any person to knowingly or recklessly provide substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violation of section 5531 of this title [prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices]”)
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
6
Ongoing FTC and CFPB Activity
The Dangers: – Joint and Several Liability for Consumer Injury – Invasive Government Oversight of Operations
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
7
Targeted Merchant Industries Telemarketing Short-Term Lending Debt Collection Financial Coaching and Debt Relief
Services “Biz Opps” and Work-from-Home
Opportunities Internet-Based IT Support Nutraceutical Sales Negative Option Marketing Payment Aggregators and Payment
Facilitators*
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
8
Perceived Red Flags
Intake: General– Departure from internal risk and
credit policies– Ignoring MATCH indicators– Ignoring related, terminated
merchants– Ignoring previous merchant or
principal rejections– Lax underwriting in the face of
guaranties, indemnification, or reserves
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
9
Perceived Red Flags
Intake: Merchant Principals– Merchant principal’s criminal
history– Merchant principal’s subprime
credit score– Incomplete merchant
applications– Difficulty connecting with
merchant principals
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
10
Perceived Red Flags
Intake: Laundering– Straw Merchants (“credit card
laundering” and “factoring”)– Multiple MIDs, same merchant– Disparities in merchant details
across applications– Physical address inconsistency
with described business activity
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
11
Perceived Red Flags
Monitoring – Chargeback ratios (3% to 31%)– Disturbing chargeback narratives– Poor reviews (including BBB)– Material departures from
projected sales (volume, per-transaction amounts)
– Lack of transparency vis-à-visthe card brands (including actively assisted load balancing)
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
12
Causes for (Cautious) Optimism
Regulatory Appreciation of Industry Self-Regulation– ETA Guidelines on Merchant and ISO Underwriting and Risk
Monitoring (v. 2) FTC v. WV Universal Management LLC (M.D. Fla.) CFPB v. Intercept Corporation (D.N.D.) CFPB v. Universal Debt Solutions, LLC (N.D. Ga.)
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
EMV Litigation
14
EMV Litigation
March 2016: B&R Supermarket, et. al. v. Visa Inc., et.al., 1:17-cv-02738 (E.D.N.Y.)
May 2016: WalMart v. Visa Inc., No. 652530/2016 (N.Y.Sup. Ct.)
May 2016: Home Depot v. MasterCard, et. al., 1:16-cv-05507 (E.D.N.Y.)
June 2016: The Kroger Co. v. Visa Inc., 1:16-cv-00693 (S.D. Ohio)
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
15
EMV Litigation B&R Supermarket: The Big Challenge
The Lawsuit: The EMV liability shift as a whole is beingchallenged as a violation of anti-trust laws, including theSherman Act and analogous state statutes
The Allegations: The big four card networks, EMVCo, and a number of large issuing banks agreed to roll out the EMV liability shift in lockstep, which constitutes an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade
Motion to Dismiss: On September 30, 2016, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
16
EMV Litigation B&R Supermarket: The Motion to Dismiss
The Defense: Plaintiffs did not meet their pleading burden toplausibly establish a conspiracy in restraint of trade, whichrequires specific evidentiary allegations of conspiracy, andnot just allegations of parallel conduct
The Ruling: Motion denied as to the card brands, butgranted as to the issuing banks
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
17
EMV Litigation B&R Supermarket: The Motion to Dismiss
Rationale as to Card Brands:
Statements by Visa and MasterCard executives
Meetings through EMVCo and the Smart Card Alliance
Lock step roll-out of rule changes that implemented the EMV shift
Judicial attack on anti-steering rules
Departure from how EMV was rolled out in other countries
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
18
EMV Litigation B&R Supermarket: The Motion to Dismiss
Rationale as to issuing banks:
Issuing banks didn’t actually implement the liability shift; that happened through changes to the card brand rules
Allegations did not establish that the issuing banks were controlling the card brands
Outcome: Issuing banks dismissed but ordered to preserve documents, as it’s conceivable they could be added to the lawsuit again in the future. Discovery is open.
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
19
EMV Litigation Walmart and Kroger Litigation: Signature Verification Challenges
The Lawsuit: Kroger and Walmart respectively seek declaratory judgment to resolve a dispute of contract interpretation regarding the verification and routing of debit cards. They claim that Visa’s interpretation violates the Durbin Amendment’s prohibition on exclusivity agreements
The Allegations: Visa has interpreted its agreements with these retailers in an unlawful manner by insisting that the retailers:
abandon PIN-only verification of debit card transactions and accept signature verification
offer cardholders the choice of having their transactions routed through the Visa’s debit network or a third party network, and honor the cardholder’s choice
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
20
EMV Litigation
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
Walmart and Kroger Litigation: Signature Verification Challenges
The Defense: Visa contends that its “Honor all Cards” ruleprohibits merchants from rejecting cards that have signatureverification only
Procedural Posture:
Kroger: Visa moved to dismiss, claiming Kroger improperlytried to invoke a private right of action under the DurbinAmendment, and that the contract between Visa and Krogerbarred its claims. But those filings are under seal…
Walmart: Visa answered and filed counterclaims againstWalmart for declaratory judgment as to the same contract, andfor fraudulent inducement, claiming it did not know Walmartintended to accept only PIN verification of debit cards
21
EMV Litigation
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
Home Depot Litigation: A Hybrid
The Lawsuit: Like the B & R plaintiffs in the big EMV challenge,Home Depot alleges that Visa and MasterCard have committed anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act and analogous state laws
The Allegations: Like Kroger and Walmart, Home Depot alleges thatVisa and MasterCard are unlawfully trying to force merchants awayfrom PIN transactions to accept signature verification because thereis a higher associated interchange fee, which they have conspired tofix at a supra-competitive rate
Procedural Posture: Transferred from the Northern District ofGeorgia to the Eastern District of New York; transcript of courtproceedings currently restricted
22
EMV Litigation
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
What Can Non-Parties on the Acquiring Side Expect?
Direct Litigation Exposure
Third party discovery requests
Document Subpoenas
Depositions
Communications from merchants
Rulings on validity of the liability shift and verification methods for debit cards
Merchant Class-Action Litigation
24
Merchant Class Action Challenges
Challenges to:– Perceived Fee Disparities– Fee Increases – Inflation of “Interchange”
Diverse Claims: – Breach of Contract; Unjust
Enrichment; “Unconscionabilty”– Fraud– RICO
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
25
Merchant Class Action Challenges
Challenges to Processing Agreement Terms:– Fee increases (with or without
notice)– Limitation of liability (as function of
processing fees)– Time limitations on reporting
statement discrepancies– Attorneys’ fee provisions – Class action and jury-trial waivers
Few, if any, rulings on the merits
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
26
Merchant Class Action Challenges
Preventative maintenance:– Processing Agreement review– Consider making certain
provisions conspicuous – Distinguish between third-party
pass-through fees and processing fees for purposes of notice
– Consider including class action waivers
– Consider including individual merchant arbitration provisions
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
For more information:
Edward A. Marshall (edward.marshall@agg.com)Theresa Kananen (theresa.kananen@agg.com)
All rights reserved.
This presentation is intended to provide general information on various regulatory and legal issues. It is NOT intended to serve as legal advice or counsel on any particular situation or circumstance.
© 2017. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP