Visa's Legal Challenges: A Deep Dive into the DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit

Overview of Visa's Legal Landscape

• A federal judge rejected Visa’s bid to dismiss the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit alleging a debit card monopoly in June 2025.

• A related merchant class-action suit advanced in August 2025, adding to litigation pressures.

• Broader regulatory scrutiny on payment fees persists, though no Visa-specific CFPB merchant fee investigation has been confirmed.

• Together, these challenges highlight ongoing pressure on the largest U.S. payments processor amid calls for greater competition.

  
  

Visa Inc., headquartered in San Francisco, operates the largest U.S. debit card network, processing more than 60% of debit transactions. In September 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust complaint alleging Visa maintains an illegal monopoly in the debit market through exclusive contracts and restrictive agreements with merchants, banks, and fintech firms. On June 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl denied Visa’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing the DOJ’s claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to proceed to discovery and potential trial.

Class-Action Lawsuit Developments

In August 2025, a related class-action lawsuit by merchants advanced, with a judge rejecting Visa's attempt to exclude certain plaintiffs based on prior settlements. This signals years of potential litigation across multiple fronts. While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has examined broader payment ecosystem issues like open banking rules and credit card fees in 2025, its focus has not centered on a targeted Visa merchant fee review. These developments underscore how regulators and private litigants are scrutinizing Visa’s dominance, though Visa maintains its practices are pro-competitive and essential for network reliability.

Details of the Visa DOJ Case

The DOJ contends Visa uses its scale to restrict competition. They point to loyalty schemes, long-term contracts with penalties, and incentives that discourage fintech partners like Apple, PayPal, and Square from developing competing debit services. Americans spend more than $4 trillion annually via debit cards, with Visa collecting over $7 billion a year in processing fees.

The court found that the government plausibly defined a relevant product market for debit networks distinct from other payment systems. It also determined that Visa’s agreements plausibly foreclosed competition. In its August 2025 response, Visa denied monopolistic conduct, emphasizing that agreements do not prevent competition and that the debit market is growing with thriving entrants. The ruling means the case will now proceed to discovery and trial, raising the risk of structural remedies or fines. Neutral analyses suggest that even a DOJ win might only affect a fraction of transaction fees (around 0.2% interchange on regulated debit), potentially not lowering costs for merchants or consumers due to risks of network fragmentation.

CFPB Investigation of Merchant Fees

The CFPB has prioritized related areas in 2025, such as vacating its $8 credit card late fee cap in April and advancing open banking rules for comment through October. However, no Visa-specific merchant fee review has materialized. Regulators are examining whether these costs hinder smaller merchants and distort competition in digital payments. This builds on congressional calls for fee transparency that could lead to new caps or mandated disclosures in the future.

Visa and Mastercard together dominate U.S. merchant processing, with Visa alone collecting significant fees annually. Visa maintains that its fees reflect the cost of fraud prevention, security, and global payment infrastructure. This broader scrutiny complements the DOJ's focus but has not yet resulted in targeted actions against Visa's fee structure.

Market Sentiment

Retailer groups and some consumers celebrate the scrutiny. For instance, Walmart executives have publicly backed fee reform, citing significant annual card costs. Payment startups like PayPal, Adyen, and Stripe see opportunities to highlight their lower-fee offerings.

Analysts note that regulatory pressure creates margin risk for Visa and Mastercard but opportunities for issuers (banks) if fees adjust. Visa’s management has defended the fees as necessary for network security and service, echoing DOJ filings.

The investor community is watching closely. If caps were imposed, Visa’s net revenue could decline by high single digits, though offsets via lower incentives and global growth could mitigate impacts.

Rival network Mastercard, with a slightly smaller market share, is often favored as a diversified play. Some market commentators note that consumer prices might briefly dip if merchant costs fall, but also warn merchants could simply raise prices elsewhere.

Academics argue that increased competition might raise costs via less efficient networks. Overall, the mood is cautious. No definitive outcome is certain, but many believe increased competition from fintech debit providers will result. Others highlight intellectual inconsistencies in DOJ actions, such as blocking mergers while suing incumbents.

Financial Analysis Using Key Methods

As with any regulatory event, we consider multiple valuation approaches:

Trend Extrapolation / Market Projection

Visa’s debit network processes approximately 60% of U.S. debit transactions and earns over $7 billion annually in fees, according to the DOJ’s complaint. If regulatory reforms reduced Visa’s fee power (e.g., 10% to 20% compression), Visa’s U.S. debit revenue could shrink by $700 million to $1.4 billion annually in a stressed scenario.

Meanwhile, global payment volumes continue to grow. Analysts expect mid-single-digit annual growth in card transaction volumes. Combining modest volume growth with fee pressure, Visa’s overall payments revenue could grow approximately 3–6% annually under regulatory constraints compared to 5–8% in normal conditions.

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Scenarios

Let’s build rough illustrative valuations:

Scenario	Assumed fee erosion	Incremental EBITDA loss (U.S. debit)	Discount rate	Terminal multiple	Approx value impact
Base	–10%	–$700M revenue × margin 60% = –$420M EBITDA	8%	20×	~$8.4 billion valuation hit
Bear	–20%	–$1.4B revenue × margin 60% = –$840M EBITDA	9%	18×	~$15 billion valuation hit
Neutral	Minimal	Limited (e.g., –$350M revenue offset by efficiencies)	8%	22×	~$4-6 billion valuation hit (if suit deemed unfounded)

In the base case, Visa could lose approximately $8–10 billion in value just from its U.S. debit franchise under fee compression.

In the bear case, which involves strong regulatory action, losses could approach $15+ billion. In a neutral case, minimal impact is expected if the suit is resolved favorably, with high-single-digit revenue decline mitigated by efficiencies. These are rough, conservative estimates; Visa’s non-U.S. business and non-debit operations could offset some losses. Outcomes may vary, as a DOJ win might not reduce overall fees significantly.

Comparable Multiples / Peer Benchmarking

Visa historically trades at a high multiple of approximately 25–30× forward earnings. Mastercard, with lower exposure to U.S. debit, trades at comparable or slightly more conservative multiples.

If investors expect structural margin erosion, Visa’s multiple could compress to closer to Mastercard’s historical levels. For example, Visa might trade at 22–24× versus the current ~28× in a neutral or base regulatory outcome.

Applying a 20× to 25× multiple to Visa’s core adjusted earnings (net of the projected hit) may reflect what the market would price in under regulatory stress.

Scenario Analysis (Combined)

• Optimistic: DOJ and related cases settle with limited changes. Fee structure tweaks occur, but Visa retains most of its margin. Value impact is moderate.

• Base: Partial reforms force Visa to reduce exclusivity, leading to modest fee compression. Value hit in the $5–10 billion range.

• Pessimistic: Major structural changes, such as breakups or forced open access, lead to significant fee base erosion. Valuation hit could be $15–20+ billion.

  
  

Investment Implications & Relative Positioning

Visa faces material downside risk compared to peers with lower U.S. exposure. Mastercard may be more resilient in this environment due to less direct exposure to U.S. debit.

Fintechs or alternative payment rails, such as digital wallets and crypto rails, could gain market share if Visa’s competitive moat weakens.

Investors should monitor DOJ filings, trial developments, and any preliminary settlement signals. Visa's 52% return on equity and dividend growth position it for resilience despite the risks.

Conclusion

The ongoing legal challenges facing Visa are significant. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to keep an eye on regulatory developments and market reactions. The landscape of payment processing is evolving, and companies must adapt to remain competitive.

This analysis is for informational purposes only and is not financial advice. The numbers and scenarios are based on publicly available data and estimations; outcomes may differ materially based on regulatory decisions, market behavior, or other developments, which could extend beyond 2025. Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Join Our Community of 60,000 Innovators

Stay updated on the latest news and insights!

Instagram: Instagram.com/aspirescapital

Subscribe for More Updates: aspirescapital.com/signup