- Sainsbury’s claims damages from MasterCard breach of the Competition Act
- Original News:
- On what grounds has the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that MasterCard’s actions fell within Article 101(1) TFEU?
- How has the CAT approached the question of whether the UK MIF has the effect of restricting competition?
- Why doesn’t Article 101(3) TFEU apply?
- Why did MasterCard’s illegality defence in relation to Sainsbury’s bank fail?
- What has the CAT held in relation to passing-on and mitigation of loss by Sainsbury’s?
- How has the CAT determined the quantum (including the discounts in relation to Sainsbury’s bank)?
- Is it likely that MasterCard will appeal this judgment and on what basis?
- What does this judgment mean in relation to other claims lodged (both before the High Court and the CAT) against both MasterCard and Visa?
- Will this judgment have any impact on the pending collective action that is expected to be lodged against MasterCard (especially in relation to passing-on)?
Competition analysis: Richard Pike, partner in the Constantine Cannon LLP’s antitrust and litigation and counselling practice groups, examines the decision in Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard Incorporated and Others, and explores whether the multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) were able to restrict or distort competition.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial