Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Visa Europe Services LLC & Ors

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Visa Europe Services LLC & Ors

Visa failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with robust empirical evidence, that its UK MIFs contributed to net efficiencies, that any such efficiencies were passed on as a fair share to consumers (including merchants), or that the MIFs were indispensable. Therefore, if the MIFs restricted competition under Article 101(1), they were not exempt under Article 101(3) at any level.

Parties
Claimant: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd; Defendant: Visa Europe Services LLC; Defendant: Visa Europe Ltd; Defendant: Visa UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (competition Law) / Judgment on Article 101(3) Exemption Issues Following Prior Judgment on Article 101(1)
Outcome
Visa’s UK MIFs were not exempt under Article 101(3) TFEU at any level during the claim period.
Legal Topics
Article 101 TFEU, Exemption Under Article 101(3), Interchange Fees, Burden of Proof, Efficiencies, Fair Share Requirement
Competition Law Commercial Law European Union Law Article 101 TFEU Exemption Under Article 101(3) Interchange Fees Burden of Proof Efficiencies +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Claimant

Visa Europe Services LLC

Defendant

Visa Europe Ltd

Defendant

Visa UK Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (competition Law) / Judgment on Article 101(3) Exemption Issues Following Prior Judgment on Article 101(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Visa’s UK MIFs (Multilateral Interchange Fees) would or could have qualified for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU if they were found to restrict competition under Article 101(1)
  2. 2 Whether Visa discharged the burden of proof to show the MIFs contributed to efficiencies, passed on a fair share to consumers, and were indispensable

Ratio Decidendi

Visa failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with robust empirical evidence, that its UK MIFs contributed to net efficiencies, that any such efficiencies were passed on as a fair share to consumers (including merchants), or that the MIFs were indispensable. Therefore, if the MIFs restricted competition under Article 101(1), they were not exempt under Article 101(3) at any level.

Court Disposition

Visa’s UK MIFs were not exempt under Article 101(3) TFEU at any level during the claim period.