Principal Data Engineer - Multiple Teams

Mastercard stock returned 20.5% in the six months to October 27, 2026, ahead of the S&P 500's 8.8%. The company reports fiscal third-quarter results on October 29, before the market opens, its first since Ling Hai became chief financial officer on August 3. Management guided 2026 net revenue growth to the high end of the low double digits on a currency-neutral basis. Growth was 12% in the second quarter, and the comparison is $8.6 billion of revenue a year earlier. Two risks stand out: rebates and incentives taking a slightly larger share of network fees, and Middle East conflict weighing on cross-border travel. Fourth-quarter results are due in January 2027.

UK businesses seek compensation from Visa and Mastercard over card fees. Visa and Mastercard face a potential multibillion-pound compensation claim in the UK after law firms Harcus Parker and Hausfeld filed collective proceedings applications at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), alleging that businesses were overcharged on consumer card transactions over six years.The claims, filed on October 26, 2026, seek compensation for alleged excessive multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) on Visa and Mastercard consumer debit, credit and prepaid card payments between October 23, 2020, and October 23, 2026. The combined value has been estimated at around £5 billion, although the claims have yet to be authorised and liability has not been established. The proposed proceedings are directed by Stephen Allen, a former travel-sector executive who has pursued earlier card-fee litigation. Litigation funder Bench Walk Advisors is financing the action. Both payment networks dispute the allegations. Why are merchants challenging interchange fees? Multilateral interchange fees are set by card networks and paid through merchants' banks when customers make card payments. They form a substantial component of the merchant service charges businesses pay to accept cards. The claimants argue that Visa and Mastercard face insufficient competitive pressure because merchants have limited practical alternatives when customers want to pay using their cards. The proposed actions allege that this lack of choice allowed the networks to maintain fees at levels that caused businesses financial losses. The proceedings concern consumer card transactions across the UK, rather than only cross-border online payments. They are therefore distinct from the regulatory dispute over post-Brexit interchange fees on UK-to-European Economic Area e-commerce transactions, where the Payments Systems Regulator has sought authority to impose fee caps. FinanceFeeds previously examined how a UK court ruling cleared the way for the regulator to pursue cross-border card fee caps. The new claims add a separate route for merchants to seek compensation for alleged historical overcharging, rather than relying solely on prospective regulatory intervention. Investor takeaway. The claims create potential compensation exposure for Visa and Mastercard, but the outcome will depend on tribunal authorisation, evidence of competition-law infringements and the calculation of merchant losses. How would the proposed collective actions work? The applications use two different participation structures, dividing businesses according to their annual group turnover during 2022-2024. UK-domiciled businesses with annual group turnover below £100 million during that period would be included automatically in the proposed opt-out proceedings, unless they choose to leave the class. Hausfeld is representing the proposed class in this action. Businesses with annual group turnover of £100 million or more may instead qualify for the separate opt-in proceedings represented by Harcus Parker. Those businesses would need to take affirmative steps to participate rather than being included automatically. The proposed classes cover businesses accepting Visa or Mastercard consumer debit, credit and prepaid cards. However, businesses that have previously brought or settled claims against either network concerning consumer card transactions would be excluded from these proceedings. The distinction between opt-in and opt-out matters because it affects how many businesses participate, the administration of the litigation and the potential scale of any compensation award. Neither structure guarantees recovery: the CAT must first authorise the collective proceedings, and the claimants must establish the relevant legal and factual grounds. How have Visa and Mastercard responded? Mastercard has strongly disputed the basis of the claims, describing the application as speculative. The company argues that interchange fees support the functioning of the UK payments ecosystem by helping people and businesses pay and receive payments securely and efficiently. Mastercard has also connected the litigation to the government's proposed changes to opt-out collective actions. The Department for Business and Trade published a consultation in July 2026 proposing reforms to the way collective claims are brought, financed and settled. The consultation also addressed how private competition claims interact with public enforcement. Visa has similarly defended interchange fees as a critical component of a secure digital payments system that benefits consumers, merchants and banks. Neither company's position constitutes a tribunal finding on the allegations. The dispute comes against a backdrop of other litigation over card acceptance costs. In the United States, Visa and Mastercard agreed in December 2025 to a proposed $167.5 million settlement in a separate class action concerning ATM access fees. That case, originally filed in 2011, involved different fees and allegations and should not be confused with the UK merchant interchange claims. FinanceFeeds has also covered the proposed US settlement of long-running merchant litigation over card-processing fees, illustrating the sustained legal and commercial pressure surrounding card-network pricing. The legal risk extends beyond any eventual damages award: prolonged litigation could increase costs and intensify scrutiny of interchange economics, while changes to collective-action rules could affect how future claims are financed. What happens next in the tribunal? The immediate question is whether the CAT will authorise the proposed collective proceedings. The applications do not establish that Visa or Mastercard breached competition law, and the tribunal must consider the legal requirements for the claims to proceed collectively. If authorised, the cases would move into further proceedings examining the allegations, relevant market conditions and the extent of any losses suffered by eligible businesses. Establishing liability would not automatically determine the amount payable to each merchant; the assessment and distribution of damages could require additional legal and economic analysis. The litigation could take years to resolve, particularly given the number of businesses potentially covered and the complexity of calculating interchange-related losses across different transaction types and merchant categories. For Visa and Mastercard, the immediate financial impact remains uncertain. The central issue is whether merchants can demonstrate that the networks' fee-setting arrangements restricted competition and caused compensable losses. Until the tribunal rules on authorisation and the merits are examined, the multibillion-pound estimate represents potential exposure rather than an established liability. Ask this article Answered from FinanceFeeds reporting, with sources Uses FinanceFeeds articles only. Not financial advice.