United States: New York Supreme Court Rules that Merchant Lacks Standing to Sue MasterCard over Data Security Breach Assessments; All Merchants Left in Peril as a Result if MasterCard Unlawfully Imposes Data Breach Assessments

On May 5, the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court for Westchester County dismissed the complaint in Jetro Holdings, LLC v. MasterCard International, Inc., in which Jetro, a leading food service wholesaler, had sued to recover approximately $6 million in fees and assessments imposed by MasterCard in the wake of data security breaches suffered by Jetro.

The fees and assessments at issue had been collected by MasterCard in the first instance from Jetro's acquirer/processor PNC Bank ("PNC"), and in turn indemnified by Jetro. In dismissing Jetro's complaint, the court rejected Jetro's argument that Jetro, as PNC's indemnitor, should be equitably subrogated to the rights of PNC to recover from MasterCard the fees and assessments in question, on the ground that MasterCard had violated both its own rules and New York law in imposing and collecting those fees and assessments. The court also rejected Jetro's alternative argument that Jetro had valid claims in its own right against MasterCard that entitled Jetro to recover the fees and assessments by reason of MasterCard's unlawful actions in collecting them. The decision's denial of any right of action by Jetro against MasterCard under these circumstances puts all merchants at extreme peril, because if the Jetro court's ruling is upheld on appeal or followed by other courts in similar cases against MasterCard, all merchants will be essentially defenseless in the event MasterCard unlawfully imposes assessments arising out of data security breaches, unless they have included language in their acquirer/processor agreements either absolving themselves of any liability, or granting themselves an assignment of the acquirer/processor's claims against MasterCard, were MasterCard to act unlawfully in imposing such assessments.

Jetro entered into a contract with PNC under which PNC agreed to serve as Jetro's "acquiring bank" within the MasterCard network, meaning that PNC would authorize Jetro to accept MasterCard-branded cards in its stores and process transactions made with those cards. In return, Jetro agreed to pay PNC an interchange fee; to comply with MasterCard's rules for payment card network members as set forth in MasterCard's Standards; and to indemnify PNC against any fines and assessments that MasterCard might impose. PNC, in turn, contracted with MasterCard to serve as an acquiring bank in the MasterCard payment network, and to comply with the Standards. The Standards state that an alleged data security breach at a merchant like Jetro constitutes an Account Data Compromise Event ("ADC Event") when it results, directly or indirectly, in the unauthorized access to or disclosure of payment card account data. Upon determining in its sole discretion that a breach constitutes an ADC Event, MasterCard then unilaterally calculates what it deems to be fraud losses and operational expenses incurred by MasterCard issuers as a result of the breach, and collects assessments for those losses, plus additional fines, from the merchant's acquirer/processor (here, PNC).

The basis for Jetro's complaint stems from two incidents in 2011 and 2012 in which cybercriminals breached Jetro's computer network, and inserted malware into Jetro's system that attempted to capture payment card data. After each incident occurred, MasterCard unilaterally determined that an ADC Event had taken place and unilaterally determined what losses it deemed its credit card issuers to have suffered as a result of the event. MasterCard's agreement was with PNC, not Jetro, so MasterCard collected from PNC both a case management fee and monetary assessments equal to the amount of the issuers' supposed losses, as unilaterally determined by MasterCard. PNC then invoked the indemnity clause in its contract with Jetro, and withheld from funds that were otherwise due to Jetro the fees and assessments that MasterCard had collected from PNC. Jetro then brought suit against MasterCard to recoup these amounts.

In its complaint, Jetro alleged that MasterCard violated its own Standards in imposing and collecting the fees and assessments in question, by concluding that the incidents in 2011 and 2012 constituted ADC Events even though it lacked evidence that any payment card data was stolen in these incidents, and by imposing fines and assessments even though it lacked evidence that MasterCard issuers suffered any losses as a result of these incidents. Jetro further alleged that MasterCard violated New York law in imposing and collecting the fees and assessments, because the MasterCard Standards are not valid liquidated damages provisions under New York law and as a result the fees and assessments were unenforceable contractual penalties. Although Jetro was not in contractual privity with MasterCard, Jetro argued that it should be equitably subrogated to the contractual rights of PNC to seek recovery of the fees and assessments from MasterCard on the ground that MasterCard acted unlawfully and without authority in imposing and collecting them. In the alternative, Jetro asserted claims in its own right directly against MasterCard seeking recovery of the fees and assessments, arguing that MasterCard's unlawful collection of the fees and assessments constituted unjust enrichment, and that by unlawfully levying these fines and assessments MasterCard had obtained money that in equity and good conscience belonged to Jetro.

In ruling on MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court agreed with Jetro that the doctrine of equitable subrogation in New York extends beyond the scope of insurance law, and encompasses "every instance in which one party pays a debt for another for which another is primarily answerable, and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter." However, it found that the equitable subrogation standard was not met, because MasterCard was not answerable to Jetro for the payments of the fees and assessments, notwithstanding the fact that MasterCard imposed the fees and assessments based entirely on Jetro's conduct and having dictated to PNC the terms of the agreement between PNC and Jetro and with constructive knowledge that Jetro would be required to indemnify PNC in full for MasterCard's unlawful actions. The court held that, because cybercriminals allegedly stole the payment card data that formed the basis for MasterCard's unilateral determination of the amounts to collect from PNC and make discretionary payments to issuers, MasterCard could not be deemed responsible for the damages incurred by Jetro based on MasterCard's alleged unlawful actions. The court similarly dismissed Jetro's direct unjust enrichment claims, finding that Jetro did not directly convey any benefit on MasterCard as any funds that MasterCard received were obtained directly from PNC as a result of the MasterCard/PNC agreement.

Were the court's opinion to be upheld on appeal (Jetro filed a notice of appeal on May 24, 2016), and/or followed by other courts in similar cases against MasterCard, it would leave a merchant essentially defenseless against any and all unlawful actions MasterCard may take in imposing an issuer reimbursement assessment based on the merchant's having suffered a data security incident, no matter how egregious MasterCard's actions may be, unless the merchant's agreement with its acquirer/processor absolves the merchant of any obligation to indemnify or reimburse the acquirer/processor for, or grants the merchant an assignment of the acquirer/processor's right to recover, were MasterCard to act unlawfully in imposing any such assessment. The Jetro court found nothing inequitable about Jetro's being forced to bear the fees and assessments at issue, even though Jetro's complaint alleged and the court's opinion did not dispute that MasterCard acted in direct violation of both its own rules and New York law in imposing and collecting those assessments. On the logic of the court's opinion, then, MasterCard could allegedly impose any issuer reimbursement assessment that strikes its fancy following a data security breach, in any amount that MasterCard may unilaterally choose and in direct violation of both its own rules and New York law, and a merchant that has agreed to indemnify its acquirer/processor against such an invalid and unlawful assessment and has not gotten an assignment of the acquirer/processor's claim to recover that assessment is helpless to do anything about MasterCard's alleged unlawful actions.

The Jetro court's ruling and analysis appears to be inconsistent with New York equitable subrogation law, as one would think that, where Party A has blatantly violated both its contract with Party B and applicable law in collecting an amount from Party B, that would paradigmatically be a case where "equity and good conscience" would call for subrogating Party B's indemnitor to Party's B's rights to recover the unlawfully collected money from Party A. The court's ruling on Jetro's direct claims found that MasterCard could not be unjustly enriched at Jetro's expense, because MasterCard received the fees and assessments directly from PNC, rather than Jetro. However, this reasoning is at odds with NY law, which does not require a direct flow of funds from the plaintiff to the defendant but rather only that the relationship is not too attenuated. Here, MasterCard's contract with PNC exists solely to facilitate transactions between MasterCard and Jetro and, in particular, MasterCard imposed the fees and assessments based on conduct by Jetro. The ruling is also inconsistent with how other courts have addressed similar claims. In Genesco v. Visa, the Middle District of Tennessee agreed, based on facts indistinguishable from those alleged by Jetro, that a merchant could assert common-law claims directly against Visa for unlawfully imposing fines and assessments consequent to a data breach. Similarly, in Aldo Group Inc. v. Moneris Solutions Corp. the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Aldo to sue MasterCard directly, finding on facts indistinguishable from those alleged by Jetro that Aldo could directly assert causes of action including unjust enrichment.

The Jetro court's ruling is thus vulnerable to challenge both on appeal and in other similar cases brought against MasterCard in other courts. But the ruling should not be ignored, because of the perilous position all merchants will be in if the ruling is either upheld on appeal or followed in other cases. In order to protect against this peril, every merchant should carefully review its acquirer/processor contract to make sure that it either absolves the merchant of any obligation to indemnify or reimburse its acquirer/processor for any unlawfully imposed MasterCard assessment or (as was the case in Genesco) grants the merchant an assignment of the acquirer/processor's claims to recover any such assessment from MasterCard. In addition, every merchant should carefully review its insurance policies to ensure that they provide adequate coverage were MasterCard to unlawfully impose assessments. Otherwise, the merchant would be left helpless if MasterCard acts unlawfully in imposing fines, fees, and/or assessments when the merchant is unfortunate enough to suffer a data security breach.

Ropes & Gray is representing Jetro in this lawsuit.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions