ARTICLE
31 January 2014

Heartland Suing Mercury: Payment Processors Should Pay Attention To This

This Wednesday, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. sued Mercury Payment Systems, LLC, in federal court.
United States Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

This Wednesday, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. sued Mercury Payment Systems, LLC, in federal court. The complaint alleges that Mercury won and maintained customers through "deceptive and unfair practices", among other things. Those practices include "substantially inflating [payment network] fees without disclosing these additional markups to merchants."

In addition to the suit, Heartland is promoting its case via a dedicated website: http://www.merchantservicesdefense.com/. The website says that it hopes the suit and the website "convince Mercury and other processing companies that may be conducting similar schemes that deceitful and illegal practices cannot continue."

Heartland has, through its Merchant Bill or Rights, its suit, and its website, declared a bit of a war on the types of practices it alleges. Whether their skirmish escalates across the industry will depend not only the legal outcome of the case, but also the willingness of others in the industry to follow.

Here are the three questions everyone in the processing world should be asking themselves this morning:

1. Does my company charge what we advertise we charge?

2. Do the prices we charge our customers reflect what is listed in the customer's contract or other terms of service provided to the customers?

3. Are my company's sales team, legal team, and management team all on the same page about what we charge (and can charge) our customers?

It easy to imagine a scenario where the answer is "no," despite a company's best intentions. Regardless, any company that answers no to any of those questions could find themselves in a position similar to Mercury's. On the other hand, any company that answers "yes" may have a quiver in their competitive arrow that may soon be more acceptable or common to use.

For further information visit Waller's Banking Law Blog

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More