Visa declined to comment on the suit, filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where Walmart is headquartered.
Visa and other card networks charge retailers fees, called swipe fees or interchange fees, each time a shopper uses a debit or credit card to pay.
In December, a federal judge in Brooklyn, NY, approved a $5.7 billion class action settlement between merchants and Visa and MasterCard despite the objections of thousands of retailers that complained it was inadequate.
Walmart, Amazon.com Inc , and Target Corp were among those opting out of the monetary components of the settlement to have the freedom to seek damages on their own.
Those businesses complained about a broad litigation release in the settlement. The release forces all merchants who accepted Visa or MasterCard, and those who will in the future, to give up their right to sue the credit card companies over rules at issue in the case or similar ones they may make in the future.
Walmart, the world's largest retailer, is seeking damages from price fixing and other antitrust violations that it claims took place between January 1, 2004 and November 27, 2012.
In its lawsuit, Walmart contends that Visa, in concert with banks, sought to prevent retailers from protecting themselves against those swipe fees, eventually hurting sales.
"The anticompetitive conduct of Visa and the banks forced Walmart to raise retail prices paid by its customers and/or reduce retail services provided to its customers as a means of offsetting some of the artificially inflated interchange fees," Walmart in court documents.
"As a result, Walmart's retail sales were below what they would have been otherwise."
When asked whether Walmart would file a suit against Mastercard, a spokesman for the retailer said the company would not discuss its litigation plans publicly.
Walmart contends that that the way Visa set swipe fees violated antitrust regulations and generated more than $350 billion for card issuers over the nearly 9-year period in question, in part at the expense of the retailer and customers.
The case is in re: Walmart Stores, US District Court, Western District of Arkansas, No. 05101.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)