Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project | Class Action Settlement Report
High Severity
American Express · Anti-Steering Practices · 2019 to 2026
American Express Forced Merchants to Overcharge Customers for Years
A federal class action exposed how Amex prohibited retailers from steering customers toward cheaper payment methods, costing millions of cardholders at 40+ major retailers.
TL;DR
For years, American Express used contractual anti-steering rules to prevent merchants from telling customers they could pay with a cheaper method, keeping Amex’s high swipe fees hidden and unchallenged. Millions of everyday shoppers at stores like Walmart, Target, CVS, Kroger, and dozens of other major retailers were systematically denied the chance to avoid inflated costs. Amex fought the lawsuit for nearly seven years before agreeing to a $17.5 million settlement in January 2026, without admitting any wrongdoing. The settlement covers debit card users and non-rewards credit card holders across multiple states who made purchases at covered retailers during the class period.
This is what it looks like when a corporation writes the rules to protect its own profits at the expense of consumers. Demand transparency in payment systems.
$17.5M
Total settlement amount
40+
Major retailers affected
7 yrs
Fought in court before settling
13
States covered by settlement classes
The Breakdown
Core Allegations: What American Express Did
Anti-steering rules, hidden fees, captive consumers
| 01 | American Express imposed contractual anti-steering rules on merchants that prohibited retailers from directing customers toward lower-cost payment methods, even when those methods would save the customer money. | high |
| 02 | These rules applied to Debit Card Classes across Alabama, DC, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Illinois, and to Non-Rewards Credit Card Classes in DC, Kansas, and Illinois, covering millions of ordinary consumers. | high |
| 03 | Amex co-branded card account holders and authorized users were included in the affected classes, meaning the harm extended beyond individual cardholders to family members on shared accounts. | med |
| 04 | Prescription drug purchases at pharmacies where customers paid only a flat insurance copay were explicitly excluded from the class, suggesting that Amex’s anti-steering harm was specific, targeted, and well understood by all parties. | med |
| 05 | Card-not-present purchases, including online and telephone transactions, were covered, meaning the harm reached consumers far beyond the physical checkout lane and into every digital shopping cart. | high |
| 06 | American Express chose to fight this lawsuit for nearly seven years, from 2019 to a trial verdict in August 2025, before finally agreeing to settle in October 2025 and executing the settlement in January 2026. | high |
Profit Over People: Revenue Prioritized Over Ethics
How Amex’s business model depended on consumer ignorance
| 01 | Amex’s anti-steering rules directly benefited the company’s revenue by ensuring consumers could not be directed to lower-fee payment options, keeping Amex’s higher merchant fees in place regardless of consumer harm. | high |
| 02 | The rules were enforced across more than 40 of the largest retailers in America, including Walmart, Target, Best Buy, CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Home Depot, and Gap, embedding the financial harm at a systemic scale. | high |
| 03 | Non-rewards cardholders were among the most harmed. Unlike rewards cardholders who received points or cashback that could offset costs, these consumers received no benefit from Amex’s premium fee structure while still being subject to its anti-steering restrictions. | high |
| 04 | The settlement explicitly states it is not a claims-made settlement, meaning once the effective date is reached, Amex cannot reclaim the funds regardless of how few class members submit claims, reflecting the scale of harm that had to be addressed. | med |
Corporate Accountability Failures: Weak Penalties, No Admission
Settlement without accountability
| 01 | The settlement agreement includes an explicit “No Admission of Wrongdoing” clause, meaning American Express pays $17.5 million to settle the case while being legally protected from any finding that its conduct was unlawful or harmful. | high |
| 02 | A jury delivered a verdict against Amex on August 28, 2025. The settlement agreement explicitly requires that verdict to be vacated and treated as having no force or effect for all purposes, including for collateral estoppel, erasing a concrete legal finding of harm. | high |
| 03 | No individual American Express executives face any personal liability under this settlement. The corporation pays, but the people who designed and enforced these rules face no consequences. | high |
| 04 | A non-disparagement clause prevents all parties from making negative or disparaging public statements about the settlement, limiting public discourse about what Amex actually did and why. | med |
| 05 | Class members who do not submit a valid claim form still lose their right to sue Amex over these practices, meaning the settlement extinguishes legal rights even for consumers who receive nothing from the fund. | high |
Community Impact: Who Was Hurt at the Checkout Lane
Everyday shoppers, not wealthy rewards users
| 01 | The affected classes specifically targeted debit card users and non-rewards credit card holders: consumers who tend to be lower-income, unbanked-adjacent, or simply practical spenders who do not carry premium Amex rewards cards. | high |
| 02 | The harm reached consumers at essential retailers: grocery chains like Kroger, Albertsons, Safeway, Publix, and Hy-Vee, pharmacies like CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid, and basic goods stores like Walmart and Target, meaning lower-income households making everyday purchases were disproportionately affected. | high |
| 03 | Authorized users on Amex accounts, who may not have chosen or understood the card terms themselves, were also swept into the affected class, reflecting the ripple effect of corporate payment policies on entire households. | med |
| 04 | With over 40 major retail chains covered, including Big Lots, Burlington, Dollar-adjacent stores, and IKEA, the geographic and economic reach of this harm touched communities across every income bracket, with the most economically vulnerable consumers least able to absorb inflated payment costs. | med |
Exploiting Delay: Seven Years Before Justice
Litigation as a corporate defense strategy
| 01 | The lawsuit was originally filed in 2019, styled as Oliver v. American Express. Amex contested the case for six years before a trial verdict was reached in August 2025, meaning the company’s anti-steering practices continued to harm consumers throughout that entire period. | high |
| 02 | Class certification was not granted until January 2024, five years after the lawsuit was filed, reflecting how effectively Amex’s legal team delayed the case from reaching a resolution that could provide consumer relief. | high |
| 03 | Amex only returned to settlement negotiations in September 2025, after a jury had already returned a verdict against it. The company did not pursue settlement until it had exhausted other legal options, confirming that delay, not resolution, was the strategy. | high |
| 04 | Even the settlement process includes built-in further delay: the preliminary approval order, notice period, and final approval hearing mean that affected consumers will not receive any funds for months after the January 2026 filing date. | med |
The 40+ Retailers Where This Happened
Walmart
Target
Home Depot
Best Buy
CVS Pharmacy
Walgreens
Kroger
Albertsons / Safeway
Publix
Rite Aid
IKEA
Gap / Old Navy
T.J. Maxx / Marshalls
Ross Dress for Less
Burlington
GameStop
Foot Locker
Ulta Beauty
Michaels
Big Lots
Williams-Sonoma
Pottery Barn / West Elm
Sprouts Farmers Market
Tractor Supply
American Eagle
Advance Auto Parts
Camping World
Circle K
Hy-Vee
Meijer
Timeline of Events
2019
Lawsuit filed as Oliver v. American Express in the Eastern District of New York, alleging anti-steering rule violations affecting debit card and non-rewards credit card holders.
June 2020
Court appoints Berman Tabacco and co-counsel as interim co-lead class counsel on the Executive Committee.
January 2024
Court certifies Debit Card Classes and Non-Rewards Credit Card Classes after five years of litigation, a major procedural victory for plaintiffs.
January 2025
Court appoints co-lead counsel as co-chairs. Class members are given an opportunity to opt out. Case renamed Moskowitz v. American Express.
August 28, 2025
Jury delivers a verdict against American Express. The settlement agreement later requires this verdict to be vacated as a condition of the deal.
Sept-Oct 2025
Parties re-engage in arm’s-length negotiations through mediator Gregory P. Lindstrom. Agreement in principle reached on October 23, 2025.
January 15, 2026
Settlement agreement executed. American Express agrees to pay $17.5 million into escrow, without admitting any wrongdoing.
January 23, 2026
Settlement agreement filed with the court as an appendix to the case, awaiting preliminary and final judicial approval.
Key Passages from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The settlement amount defined
Settlement Consideration
“seventeen million, five hundred thousand U.S. dollars ($17,500,000.00)”
The $17.5 million figure represents the total compensation Amex agreed to pay after years of resistance, and it will be distributed to class members after fees, administration costs, and attorney awards are deducted.
QUOTE 2
No admission of wrongdoing clause
Corporate Accountability Failures
“shall not be offered against Defendants as evidence of, or construed as, or deemed to be evidence of any presumption, concession, or admission by Defendants with respect to the truth of any fact alleged by Plaintiffs”
This clause is the corporate immunity mechanism built into almost every major class action settlement. Amex pays to make the case go away while legally preserving its ability to claim it did nothing wrong.
QUOTE 3
Jury verdict must be erased
Corporate Accountability Failures
“the Final judgment does not state that the jury verdict entered August 28, 2025 (ECF No. 383) is vacated and of no force or effect for all purposes, including collateral estoppel or other preclusive purposes”
Amex made erasing the jury verdict a material condition of settling. Any judgment that kept the verdict intact would give Amex grounds to walk away from the $17.5 million deal entirely.
QUOTE 4
Non-submitting class members still lose their rights
Corporate Accountability Failures
“Any Class Member who or which fails to timely submit a valid Claim Form will not be entitled to receive any of the proceeds from the Net Settlement Fund but will otherwise be bound by all of the terms of this Stipulation”
Consumers who never file a claim still permanently lose their legal right to sue Amex over these practices. This is one of the most consequential and least publicized aspects of class action settlements.
QUOTE 5
Settlement covers any and all claims into the future
Core Allegations
“from the beginning of time and continuing into the future without end”
This release language is extraordinarily broad. By settling, class members waive not just current claims but any future claims arising from the same conduct, regardless of what additional harm may come to light later.
QUOTE 6
Non-disparagement keeps consumers in the dark
Corporate Accountability Failures
“The Parties agree they will not make any negative, disparaging, or defamatory statements regarding any Party in public statements made in connection with the Settlement”
The non-disparagement clause muzzles both sides from speaking publicly about what Amex actually did. It protects the company’s brand at the cost of public understanding about the harm.
Commentary
What exactly did American Express do wrong? ▾
American Express wrote rules into its merchant contracts that prevented store employees and checkout systems from telling customers that paying with a different card or method would cost less. These “anti-steering” rules kept Amex’s higher swipe fees intact by making sure consumers never had the information they needed to choose a cheaper option. The result: millions of shoppers paid more than they had to at the checkout lane, and Amex collected the difference through inflated merchant fees.
Who exactly was harmed?▾
The certified classes cover debit card users and non-rewards credit card holders in specific states who made purchases at covered retailers during the class period. These are not wealthy rewards travelers getting points. These are ordinary people using debit cards and basic credit cards at Walmart, Kroger, CVS, and dozens of other everyday stores. The harm fell heaviest on the consumers least able to absorb it.
Is $17.5 million enough?▾
Almost certainly not. The settlement covers consumers across more than 40 major retail chains over a multi-year class period. When you consider the volume of transactions at Walmart, Target, Kroger, and CVS alone over several years, the financial harm to class members almost certainly exceeds the settlement amount by orders of magnitude. The $17.5 million is what plaintiffs could negotiate, not a measure of the total harm. By the time attorney fees and administration costs are deducted, individual class members may receive very little.
Why did Amex fight for seven years before settling?▾
Delay is a deliberate corporate legal strategy. Every year a case remains unresolved, the company continues operating under the challenged practices. Legal costs are tax-deductible business expenses. Class membership gets harder to define over time. And the longer the case drags, the more likely some class members lose interest or move on. Amex only settled after a jury verdict went against it in August 2025. It took a courtroom loss to bring the company to the table.
What does it mean that the jury verdict gets vacated?▾
It means a group of ordinary people heard the evidence, deliberated, and found against American Express, and that finding gets legally erased as a condition of the settlement. Future courts, regulators, and journalists cannot point to the August 2025 verdict as a legal determination that Amex’s conduct was unlawful. It is as if the jury never spoke. Amex paid $17.5 million specifically to make that happen. The price of accountability was a settlement that eliminated the accountability.
Are these anti-steering practices still happening?▾
The settlement does not include any injunctive relief requiring Amex to change its merchant agreements. There is no provision in the settlement requiring Amex to stop, alter, or disclose its anti-steering practices going forward. The company pays the settlement, the case is dismissed with prejudice, and its business practices are not subject to any court-ordered reform. Whether Amex continues similar practices is a question only ongoing regulatory oversight and future litigation can answer.
What can I do to prevent this from happening again?▾
Several concrete actions make a difference: (1) File a claim if you are a class member in a covered state, because money not claimed is money Amex effectively keeps. (2) Contact your federal and state representatives and urge them to support payment system transparency laws that require merchants to be allowed to inform customers about payment fee differences. (3) Support organizations like the Electronic Payments Coalition or consumer advocacy groups pushing for open payment competition. (4) Choose credit unions and community banks over large financial institutions when possible: smaller institutions typically charge lower interchange fees and have less leverage to impose anti-competitive merchant rules. (5) Pay attention to state attorneys general who bring enforcement actions against anti-steering practices, and vote for officials who prioritize consumer financial protection.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
