Friday, April 26, 2013
The judge directed his order at "the creators" of the Merchants Object! website, which "appear to include" the National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of Truck Operators, National Community Pharmacists Association, National Cooperative Grocers Association, National Grocers Association and National Restaurant Association.
The six trade associations identified in the order are part of a group of nearly 8 million merchant plaintiffs covered by a proposed $7.25 billion settlement of a class action claim that Visa Inc. and MasterCard Worldwide interchange rules violate federal antitrust law. A court appointed group of attorneys negotiated the proposed settlement with the card companies on behalf of the merchant class.
A number of large retailers and trade associations object to terms of the proposed settlement in part because card companies would receive immunity from future antitrust actions challenging interchange rules. The six trade associations in the order are using the jointly sponsored Merchants Object! page and their own websites to encourage retailers to both object to and opt out of the proposed settlement. Retailers are told these actions will encourage the court to reject the terms of the final settlement at its final hearing in September 2013.
On April 11, 2013, following objections from the plaintiff attorneys, Gleeson issued a finding that information about the proposed settlement on the Merchants Object! page and other sites sponsored by the six trade associations is misleading retailers. He ordered the attorneys to negotiate a correction.
On April 19, 2013, plaintiff attorneys and trade association attorneys separately informed the court they were unable to reach agreement on how to correct the information the court found to be misleading.
Judge Gleeson subsequently issued his order and contempt threat, stating, "The merchantsobject.com site continues to this day to obfuscate the important differences between opting out and objecting, and it fails to adequately inform a visitor to the site of the consequences of opting out." (The consequences of opting out was covered in "The $7.25 billion settlement proposal: What you need to know," The Green Sheet, April 22, 2013, issue 13:04:02, found online at www.greensheet.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=NULL .)
Gleeson ordered that corrective banners be posted on the Merchants Object! page and other websites run by the six trade associations where information about the settlement is determined to be misleading. The banners are required, among other things, to inform retailers that the "persuasiveness of a merchant's objection" is the same whether or not the merchant who objects has opted out of the proposed settlement.
"I reject categorically the Trade Association Plaintiffs' claim that the First Amendment prevents the Court from ensuring that the class members are not further misled and misinformed about the proposed settlement," Gleeson said. "All parties remain free to express their views regarding the merits of the proposed settlement, but basic fairness to the class members requires that the communications with them contain neither false nor misleading information."
The court-ordered corrective banner was not on the Merchants Object! website when this story was submitted two days after Gleeson's ruling. 
Editor's Note:
The Green Sheet Inc. is now a proud affiliate of Bankcard Life, a premier community that provides industry-leading training and resources for payment professionals. Click here for more information.
Notice to readers: These are archived articles. Contact names or information may be out of date. We regret any inconvenience.
