After almost a decade of litigation, millions of UK consumers are finally moving toward compensation from Mastercard. But the headline figure being reported — £45 to £70 per person — only tells half the story.

The Real Math

Half the £200 million settlement — £100 million — is set aside for the roughly 44 million eligible UK consumers. Split evenly, that’s just over £2 each. The widely quoted £45–£70 range only works if around 5% of people actually claim, which is typical for opt-out settlements but a low bar for something marketed as compensation. The case originally sought £14 billion; the £200 million settlement Mastercard agreed to, without admitting liability, is 1.4% of that.

A Funder That Sued Its Own Client

Litigation funder Innsworth Capital tried to block class representative Walter Merricks from accepting the £200 million deal, arguing it fell short of the roughly £400 million return its funding agreement had envisaged. When the Tribunal approved the settlement anyway, Innsworth took Merricks to arbitration — the funder suing the very man it was funding. Mastercard, the defendant, then stepped in to give Merricks up to £10 million to defend himself against his own backer.

That dispute has just been resolved: Innsworth dropped the arbitration and accepted £62.6 million plus interest, on top of tens of millions more owed from the settlement pot. A funder suing the person it bankrolled, over how much of consumers’ money it gets to keep, says a lot about whose interests these cases really serve.

Where the Rest of the Money Went

Merricks’ legal team is reported to have billed more than £18.1 million. Mastercard’s own legal costs, never published, could be higher still. Innsworth stands to collect close to £68 million in total. Merricks himself, who led the case for eight years, was paid £143,000 for the entire period — under £18,000 a year.

Out of a £200 million settlement meant to compensate consumers for years of overcharging, lawyers and a litigation funder are set to collect tens of millions of pounds — while the 44 million people the case was actually brought for split a pot worth roughly £2 a head, before the claims discount even kicks in.

Watch Out for Scams

Be wary of unsolicited texts, emails and social ads promising “Mastercard compensation.” A company mentioning the settlement isn’t necessarily connected to the official claim. Nobody should feel pressured to sign agreements, hand over financial details, or pay someone simply because they’re told compensation might be waiting.

Nearly ten years and £200 million later, the people who were actually overcharged are being asked to settle for a couple of pounds each, while the funder and the lawyers fight over tens of millions. If group litigation is going to mean anything for ordinary consumers, cases like this one need to put real money in real people’s hands — not just fund everyone standing between the claim and the claimant.

Further Reading

Official claims site: mastercardconsumerclaim.co.uk

The £2.27-a-head maths and legal fees: Fair Civil Justice — Merricks v Mastercard: Who Really Wins in This Settlement?

Latest on the Innsworth dispute: Legal Futures — Merricks and funder settle with consumers set for Mastercard money